Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20100330 Late Correspondence
1 RESOLUTION NO.2010-)4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SETTING FORTH THE CITY COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION THAT THE CITY SHOULD NOT ACQUIRE THE 16 LOTS OWNED BY THE MONKS PLAINTIFFS AND DOCUMENTING THE ACTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TAKEN TO PURGE THE CITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, in 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-43, which required owners of properties within Zone 2 of the City's Landslide Moratorium Area to demonstrate that a zone -wide factor of safety of at least 1.5 exists before owners of undeveloped properties within that Zone could develop their properties; and WHEREAS, owners of 16 undeveloped lots within Zone 2 subsequently filed lawsuits entitled Monks, et al. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, et al., in state and federal court challenging the adoption of that Resolution on the grounds that it constituted a taking under the federal and state constitutions; and WHEREAS, the,.City entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs whereby the federal lawsuit was dismissed and the plaintiffs received payment for all of their claims for a tempbrary taking; and WHEREAS, the California Court of Appeal in the case entitled Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, reversed a decision by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which previously had determined, after a lengthy trial, that the City's action of adopting Resolution No. 2002-43 did not constitute a taking of property, and held that the adoption of Resolution No. 2002-43 did cause a regulatory taking of property; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the City's petition for review of the decision in the Monks case; and WHEREAS, in Hensler v. City of Glendale, 8 CalAt" 1(1994), the California Supreme Court stated that following a judicial determination that a taking of property has occurred by virtue of the adoption of a governmental regulation, the governmental entity must be afforded the option to exempt the property from the scope of the regulation or to repeal the offending regulation so that the governmental entity is not required to pay compensation for the taking; and WHEREAS, the City Council never wished to purchase the plaintiffs' properties; and WHERAS, The City's expert appraiser established a value of approximately $1 million per lot for each of the plaintiffs' properties, and the plaintiffs' expert valued the plaintiffs' properties at an even greater value; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 01= THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City does not have adequate funds in its general fund reserve to pay the plaintiffs for their properties, regardless of which appraiser's valuation is used to determine the value of those properties. Section 2: The City Council has taken the following actions to eliminate the taking in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in the Hensler case: A. On January 21, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No.2009-06, which repealed Resolution No. 2002-43. B. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 498, which established a new exception P in Section 15.20,040 of the City's Landslide Moratorium Ordinance so that the owners of the 16 Monks lots could apply to develop their properties and use the same processes that are available to developed properties located within the Landslide Moratorium Area. 4 4 C. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 502, which increased the amount of the grading that could occur on each of the 16 lots owned by the Monks plaintiffs to up to 1000 cubic yards per lot; D. The City has received the applications for a moratorium exception from each of the owners of the Monks plaintiffs' lots, seven of which are complete applications, and has approved all of the applications for the seven lots for which complete applications have been submitted. E. On March 30, 2010, the City Council took action to reduce the planning and building fees that will be charged to the owners of the Monks plaintiffs' 16 lots to the rates that were in effect in 2002. SECTION 3: The City Council finds that it has taken all of the actions that are necessary to allow the Monks plaintiffs, similar to other property owners in the City, to apply to the City to develop their properties in accordance with the procedures established by the Municipal Code, and therefore, the City Council has eliminated the need for the City to pay compensation to the Monks plaintiffs. 1218942-1 + Qa G1 7a"*° C '\ � Cth✓1� � y2aSt � ,P -f -re roc. to p_ c es&0�1y to Ot d I e4lp, '� °1 F PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THE 31st DAY OF MARCH 2010. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2010- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on March 31, 2010. City Clerk 1218942-1 3 444 South Flower Street - Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 9007 1-2953 voice 213.236.0600 - fax 213.236.2700 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP www.bwslaw.com March 31, 2010 By Hand Delivery Ara Mihranian, AICP Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 :IVED FROM UU-11 "1Wr2' MADE A PART OF T RE ORD AT TH NCIL MEETING OF .0 a19A OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Direct No.: 213.236.2702 Our File No.: 04693-0001 ddavis@bwslaw.com Re: Marymount College FEIR: Adequacy of Soils Analysis Re Proposed Keyways and Slope Stability Dear Mr. Mihranian: On behalf of Marymount College, I submit these supplemental comments for incorporation as part of administrative record for the Marymount College Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) regarding the referenced issue. In response to recent comments regarding the College's preliminary grading plans, our office along with the College's consulting geologist, Ted Riddell, President, ASE Soils Engineering, Inc. (ASE), have reviewed the multiple reports, reviews, comments and correspondence between the College and the City and its consultants along with the relevant appendices, and analysis in the FEIR with respect to the adequacy of the document regarding any potential significant environmental impacts arising from proposed construction activity as it relates to keyways and the remediation,.gf existing soil conditions on the southerly slopes of the campus. For the reasons set forth below, we believe that for the purposes of CEQA, this issue has been more than adequately disclosed and analyzed. As you are aware, CEQA discourages the "placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of and EIR" while encouraging the summary of "technical data... and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15147.) Indeed, an EIR is not required to be an exhaustive evaluation of all of the variations of the issues presented. (City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. District. (2009) 176 Cal.AppAth 889, 898; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. V. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.AppAth 645, 666.) Rather, the critical question is whether there is sufficient information provided to allow the decision -makers and the public to understand the environmental consequences of a project. (In re Bay -Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 CalAth 1143, 1175.) The College believes these standards have all been exceeded with respect to this limited issue. LA #4818-5697-1781 v1 Los Angeles - inland Empire - Menlo Park - Orange County - Palm Desert - Ventura County 7f BURKE, WILLIAiMS & SORENSEN, LLP Ara Mihranian, AICP March 31, 2010 Page 2 As indicated above, Mr. Riddell has reviewed the history of the southern facing and southwestern facing slopes at Marymount College. His firm' s initial Investigation and plan review addressing slope stability of the south facing and southwestern facing slopes were dated June 28, 2002, and were reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant, Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc. (ZKI), In that report, ASE performed slope stability analyses in order to make recommendations for the construction of improvements on and adjacent to the subject slopes. It was determined that a shear key, part of the way down the slope, would be necessary to remove unsuitable previously placed artificial fill and unsuitable surficial soils, out -of -slope dipping bentonite layer, and weathered bedrock to support the proposed improvements near the top of slope. This type of removal and replacement with compacted fill and subdrains is a common grading technique utilized to stabilize otherwise unstable slopes. The 6/28/02 report was reviewed by ZKI, and the shear key design was refined. Through the years, as the Project was revised, the grading plan also went through several revisions, and each time ASE submitted the revised key location and Geotechnical Map to ZKI for their review and approval. Section 5.6 of the FEIR contains appropriate summaries of these reports and findings, the potential impacts and the recommended mitigation measures. First, we direct your attention to the discussion of the potential impacts associated with the "Artificial Fill" on pp.5.6-2 and 5.6-3; the analysis of "Slope Stability" on pp. 5.6-8 to 10. Subsection 5.6.4 begins with this statement: The level of geotechnical and landform Information presented by the College's geotechnical consultant (ASE) and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (March 93, 2007) is adequate to analyze the potential Project effects on earth resources and landforms, and to determine appropriate mitigation measures." (5.6-15; emphasis added.) The analysis at p.5.6-20 specifically references the proposed keyway excavations for the buttress fills need to enhance the soil stability and safety. The analysis continues for several more pages before concluding that "No signirrcant impacts related to geology and soils have been identified following implementation of the recommended mitigation and compliance with applicable standards/policies of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code." It should be noted that the key location and dimensions will likely change again as the grading plan is revised and refined. The City's Geologist was in attendance at the public hearing on the FEIR last night and also re -affirmed that he would be continuing to review the grading plan as it is finalized consistent with the recommended mitigation measures in the FEIR. He was repeatedly asked LA #4818-5697-1781 v1 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Ara Mihranian, AICP March 31, 2010 Page 3 whether he had any significant concerns regarding the proposed remedial grading, including the shear key, and he responded in the negative. With respect to the estimated amounts of remedial grading, I am attaching an e-mail to you from Michael Laughlin dated June 2, 2009 confirming that such information has been provided to the City. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in including this information in the administrative record. Sincerely, BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP DONALD M. DAVIS DMD:ir Attachments: 1. Psomas e-mail dated 6/2/2009 cc: Dr. Michael Brophy Michael Laughlin Scott Boydstun Joel Rojas, Planning Director Carol Lynch, City Attorney LA #4818-5697-1781 v1 Page 1 of 2 Ted Riddell From: Michael Laughlin [miaughlin@psomas.coml Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:36 PM To: Ara M Cc: Davis, Donald M.; Scott Boydstun; ted@associatedsolls com Subject: FW: Marymount - remedial grading Attachments: FILE0001.pdf; FILE0002.pdf; marymount plan review-001.pdf Ara; Please review the attached letter, Geologic Map and series of cross sections that were submitted to the City on May 19th. I would also suggest that you confer with the City Geologist since it is very difficult to separate out what can be categorized as "remedial" as opposed to necessary to insure structural stability of proposed improvements and to adhere to accepted geotechnical practices, but I will try to offer a description of each grading area that may assist you: Section A: This is the section through the existing soccer field and slope extending to the southwest. In order to stabilize this area, the recommended cut Is approximately 25'. Within this excavation area, you will note that bentonite occurs close to the bottom of the excavation area. So, the unknown is if it will be necessary to go an extra few feet to remove the bentonite. You will note that the new lawn area below the parking lot will be several feet below the existing soccer field area to create a more natural slope. Section B: This section shows the area below the administration building and the new central walkway and firelane. As you can see from the cross section, there is a need to remove fill materials and create a shear key into the existing slope to assure the structural stability of new improvements, including the firelane. The maximum cut will be about 20 feet at the internal edge of the keyway, with most of the excavation below this height. The slope will then be restored and raised slightly for the firelane, and then transitioned into the existing grade so that the area will appear as a continuous natural gradual downslope. Section C: This is a section through the west end of the site, specifically the tennis court to the location of the new backdrain. The section shows how the tennis court will be below existing grade. Over -excavation for stability will occur below the finished elevation of the courts, and then replaced with compacted fill. Section D: This section shows the grading for new athletic facility. Grading at the back end of the athletic facility, including overexcavation, will be about 25' (approximately 5' of which is the overexcavation). A keyway below the proposed structure will be created for stability, and the slope below the building restored to natural contours. The following estimate was provided by Ted at Associated soils concerning the quantity of grading that can be considered remedial in nature: • Section A; remove and replace uncertified fill and bentonite laye� for stability of the proposed cut slope ±7,000 cubic yards (cy) • Section B and D; south facing slope shear key for slope stability ±18,000 cy • Section C; remove and replace uncertified fill in canyon for drainage ±7,500 cy • Pad overexcavations (library, gymnasium, additions, tennis courts, etc.) ±8,500 cy Total Remedial Grading ±41,000 cy 6/3/2009 Page 2 of 2 Michael P. Laughlin, AICP P S O M A S I Balancing the Natural and Built Environment Senior Project Manager Planning and Entitlements 555 So. Flower Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 900711 213.223.1400 Direct: 213.223.1430 Fax: 213.223.1.444 m la ug h lin ftsom ag,gotn www.asomas.com Consider the environment before printing this email. From: Ara M [mallto:aram@rpv.comJ Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 11,27 AM To: Michael Laughlin Cc. 'David Snow'; 'Joel Rojas'; aram@rpv.com; 'Davis, Donald M.; 'Michael Brophy' Subject: Marymount - remedial grading Michael, In order to address the findings for the requested remedial grading, I will need the following questions answered by the end of the today or first thing tomorrow morning: • Maximum vertical height of cut or fill (relative to the remedial grading) Of the requested 84,800 cubic yards of earth movement, how many cubic yards of earth movement (cut and fill) is related to the remedial grading? Thanks, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram ,arpv.corn www.palgsy-erdes.com/rpv `~A Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Randio Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential andfor protected from disclosure. The Information is Intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthaized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this ernall in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 6/3/2009 LAI k, -, RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 31, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Emails from: Michael P. Laughlin; Craig Whited; Thomas and Barbara Chargaff; Valerie Russo; Grace Malolepszy; Alicia Maniatakis; Mark R. Wells; Lois Karp; Email without signature from pacificgrounds@yahoo.com Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100330 additions revisions to agenda.doc From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:37 PM To: 'Carla Morreale'; 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Marymount - Clarification of PV North area Attachments: PV North Marymount Site A.pdf; Marymount Deed for PV North.pdf; PV North zoning letter to Ara.pdf Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Michael Laughlin [mailto:mlaughlin@psomas.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:21 PM To: Ara M Cc: Davis, Donald M.; MBrophy@marymountpv.edu Subject: Marymount - Clarification of PV North area Ara — Attached please find information about the PV North site. The deed clearly states the 11.35 acres, excluding the .31 acres. The exclusion of the road easement is also clearly noted. I would appreciate you forwarding this information to the City Council. Thank you. Michael P. Laughlin, AICP P S 0 M A S I Balancing the Natural and Built Environment Senior Project Manager Planning and Entitlements 555 So. Flower Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 900711 213.223.1400 Direct: 213.223.1430 Fax: 213.223.1444 mlaughlin _,psomas.com NYNkYY.,.psU1.:nas. c,gn ,"A �Jr Consider the environment before printing this email, 3/31/2010 August 27, 2007 Ara Michael Mihranian, AICD Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-5391 Re: ZON2005-00395 Marymount College Modernization Plan: Support Information for Sec. 7.3 of the Marymount ADEIR - PV North Zoning Information Dear Ara: Psomas conducted independent City of Los Angeles zoning research to provide clarification on the process that would be required to implement the Split Campus Alternative discussed in the ADEIR. The following information is provided for your use as well as RBF's use: Marymount College currently has use of approximately 11.4 acres at 1502-1522 W. Palos Verdes Drive North (also referred to a the PV North site). A copy of the site plan of the units currently on the site is attached for reference, along with a copy of the City of Los Angeles Zoning summary for the site. The site is currently improved with 86 townhomes. The current City of Los Angeles zoning is RD6-1 XL. This is low density multi -family residential zone which allows for one unit for every 6,000 square feet of lot area. It is basically a duplex zone which requires a minimum 12,000 square foot lot on which 2 units can be built. This translates to about 82 units permitted on the site. 11.4 acres x 43,560 (sq.ft. per acre) divided by 6,000 = 82 units The 1 XL" limits height to no more than 30' (two stories), and the floor area to no more than 3:1. This means that the total enclosed building area would be limited to: 11.4 acres x 43,560 (sq.ft. per acre) x 3 = 1,489,752 square feet. Normal yard, setback, parking and open space requirements apply to current and future development of the site. Because of the size of the site, the current development on the site appears to meet current setback requirements. Any new development would likely be designed to meet setback requirements or a variance may be requested. 11444 West Olympic Blvd. Suite 750 West Los Angeles, CA 90064.1549 310.954.3700 310.954.3777 fax 4 37 www.psomas.com P S O M A S Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian Page 2 August 27, 2007 Based on the existing use of the property and the zoning, the current use is "legally non- conforming" since the number of units on the site is greater than the number permitted under the zoning. Since the property was formerly owned by the Federal Government, uses on the property were exempt from local government control. The General Plan designation for the site is Low Density Residential. Approximately 2 acres of the site have been categorized as geologically constrained, which could further limit redevelopment potential of the site. On May 17, 2007, the City of Los Angeles Planning Department was contacted and was asked what the process would be to develop dormitories and other should related uses on the site. The Community Planner for Wilmington/Harbor City informed us that a Zone Variance would be required to increase the number of units and exceed the height limit (which would likely be required to construct an athletic facility at the site). A conditional use permit would also be required for a use other than 82 residential single family or duplex units. It was also advised that a meeting be held with the district City Council member to discuss the project before an application is made since the approval requires granting of a variance and conditional use permit which may not be granted by the City, since dormitories or other educational facilities are not allowed by right under the zoning. In conclusion, the implementation of the Split Campus alternative recommended in the Administrative Draft EIR may not be feasible since it requires discretionary approvals by the City of Los Angeles. A zone variance would be required to increase the number of residential units on the site from 82 to 180, and a conditional use permit would be required for all of the uses on the site. In addition, environmental review for compliance with CEQA would be required. The City could conclude that it is not appropriate to have two academic facilities next to each other in a low density residentially zoned area (Rolling Hills preparatory school is east of the site), in which case the site could only be redeveloped for 82 residential units. It is anticipated that it would take two or more years to obtain necessary approvals and permits to start any construction on the site. It is also anticipated that traffic mitigation would be required by the City of Los Angeles. Please feel free to contact me if you should have any further questions about the PV north site. Sincerely, PSOMAS Michael P. Laughlin, A( rPj Project Manager cc: Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount College Saida Kafe-ee, Marymount College Don Davis, Burke, Williams,& Sorensen - This page is part of your document- DO NOT DISCARD TITLE(S) : DEED w FEE CODE 20 04 1066621 RECORDED/FILI ED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE :OS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA 3:21 PM APR 29 2004 I�tl�l�l�l��sll CODE 19 CODE 9 Assessor's Identification Number (AIN) To be completed by Examiner OR Title Company in black ink. - THIS FORM NOT TO BE DUPLICATED D.T.T Number of AIN's Shown RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO Thomas M. McFadden President, Marymount College 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-377-5501 '-A 04 1066627 t'? 04 iO66G27 QUITCLAIM DEED AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTION Pursuant to California Civil Code §1471 PREAMBLE This DEED is made this 22nd day of April, 2004, between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting through the Secretary of Education, by David B. Hakola, Director, Federal Real Property Assistance Program, office of Management, ("GRANTOR") pursuant to §203(k) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended ("Act") , Public Law No. 81-152, 63 Stat. 377, 40 U.S.C. §471 et seq., the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, Public Law No. 96-88, 93 Stat. 668, 20 U.S.C. §3401 et seq., and the Marymount College, a non-profit corporation of the State of California, exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26,having its principal offices at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, California ("GRANTEE"). I. RECITALS 1. By letter dated November 21, 2003 from the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, San Diego, California, certain Federal surplus real property located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, known as being a portion of the former Palos Verdes Y, 04 1066627 Naval Housing, City of Los Angeles, California, and consisting of approximately 11.04 acres of improved land, more or less, ("Property"), was assigned to GRANTOR for disposal upon the recommendation of GRANTOR that the Property is needed for educational purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 2. GRANTEE has made a firm offer to purchase the Property under the provisions of the Act, has applied for a public benefit allowance, and proposes to use the Property for certain educational purposes as detailed in its December 23, 1998 application, as supplemented and amended on February 9, 1999, and April 2, 2002 (together "Application") 3. The Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command has notified GRANTOR that no objection will be interposed to the transfer of the Property to GRANTEE at 100 per cent public benefit allowance, and GRANTOR has accepted the offer of GRANTEE. II. AGREEMENT 4. GRANTOR, in consideration of the foregoing, one dollar, the performance by the GRANTEE of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions hereinafter contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does N ,? 6� 37 04 1066627 hereby remise, release and quitclaim to the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, all right, title, interest, claim and demand, reserving such rights as may arise from the operation of the conditions subsequent, restrictions and covenants of this Deed, which the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has in and to the Property, which is more particularly described as follows: MARYMOUNT PARCEL A BEING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAID PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED MARCH 12, 1992 IN BOOK 129 PAGES 3, 4 AND 5 OF RECORD OF SURVEY IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY AS "NORTH 84038116" EAST 1420.76 FEET" SAID WESTERLY TERMINUS ALSO BEING A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH; 1st THENCE NORTH 84038116" EAST 441.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 172.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 67011'58" East; 2nd THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09020151" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 28.06 FEET; 3rd THENCE SOUTH 32°08153" WEST 95.16 FEET; 4th THENCE SOUTH 58002155" EAST 82.95 FEET; 5th THENCE SOUTH 26027137" WEST 113.27 FEET; 3 04 1066627 6th THENCE SOUTH 0204212011 EAST 68.66 FEET; 7th THENCE SOUTH 16c)14114" WEST 119.99 FEET; 8th THENCE SOUTH 0203214111 WEST 272.07 FEET; 9th THENCE SOUTH 1302411311 WEST 132.73 FEET; 10th THENCE SOUTH 6602812411 WEST 45.71 FEET; 11th THENCE SOUTH 4405415811 WEST 42.54 FEET; 12th THENCE NORTH 7200812011 WEST 109.61 FEET; 13th THENCE NORTH 57o35'5211 WEST 30.41 FEET; 14th THENCE NORTH 3503011511 WEST 39.53 FEET; 15th THENCE NORTH 5100512511 WEST 47.32 FEET; 16th THENCE NORTH 51o5412111 WEST 356.57 FEET; 17th THENCE NORTH 5803114811 WEST 187.49 FEET; 18th THENCE NORTH 15056I1211 WEST 35.76 FEET; 19th THENCE NORTH 6202713611 WEST 46.09 FEET; 20th THENCE NORTH 5704214611 WEST 2.00 FEET; 21st THENCE SOUTH 32021'56" EAST 220.68 FEET; 22nd THENCE NORTH 1303010911 WEST 127.89 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 4589.80 FEET, A RADIAL LINE LINE OF SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 09041'14" WEST; 23rd THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL 4 /0o/L3% 04 1066627 ANGLE OF 04019130" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 346.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 11.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. EXCEPTING OUT MARYMOUNT PARCEL A-2 BEING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAID PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED MARCH 12, 1992 IN BOOK 129 PAGES 3, 4 AND 5 OF RECORD OF SURVEY IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY AS "NORTH 84°38116" EAST 1420.76 FEET" SAID WESTERLY TERMINUS ALSO BEING A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH; 1st THENCE NORTH 84038116" EAST 441.70 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 172.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 67o11'S8" East; 2nd THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09-20'51" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 28.06 FEET; 3rd THENCE SOUTH 32°08'53" WEST 95.16 FEET; 4th THENCE SOUTH 58002'55" EAST 82.95 FEET; 5th THENCE SOUTH 26027137" WEST 113.27 FEET; 6th THENCE SOUTH 02042120" EAST 68.66 FEET; 7th THENCE SOUTH 16014114" WEST 119.99 FEET; 8th THENCE SOUTH 02032141" WEST 26.63 FEET TO THE TRUE 5 0111 1066627 POINT OF BEGINNINS; 9th THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 02032141" WEST 245.44 FEET; 10th THENCE SOUTH 13024113" WEST 132.75 FEET; 11th THENCE SOUTH 66x28124" WEST 45.71 FEET; 12th THENCE SOUTH 44o5415611 WEST 27.76 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 227.76 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 44056124" WEST, 13th THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02007100" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 8.41 FEET; 14th THENCE NORTH 42°56136" WEST 42.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 48.00 FEET; 15th THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°39127" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 12.28 FEET; 16th THENCE NORTH 81o20'll" EAST 64.50 FEET; 17th THENCE NORTH 12057137" EAST 296.11 FEET; 18th THENCE NORTH 12036105" EAST 68.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 0.31 ACRES MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH all the buildings and improvements located thereon, and all appurtances and improvements hereunto belonging. 6 /c:;� vj 3 7 04 1066627 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING GRANTS AND RESERVATIONS: The GRANTOR hereby grants to the GRANTEE, and its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress on, across and over those portions of the roadway, identified as "USS New Jersey," (Roadway) located on land adjacent to the Property, which remains in the ownership of the United States of America as of the date of this conveyance, for vehicular and pedestrian access for a public right of way as needed to connect the Property to Palos Verdes Drive North. Such access rights shall apply to said Roadway except where it is fenced and gated by GRANTOR, and its successors and assigns, in which case access rights shall be limited to such ingress and egress as may be required for fire and other similar emergency purposes. The GRANTOR, and its successors and assigns, shall not redevelop, close, abandon, reconfigure or replace the Roadway in such a manner that would unreasonably interfere with the ability of GRANTEE, and its successors and assigns, to access the Property. To the extent the Roadway is closed, abandoned, reconfigured or replaced after the date of this conveyance or otherwise ceases to exist, said easement shall be on, across, and I over such other improved or unimproved roads that connect to 7 /--7 orr 3i 0.4 1066627. / Palos Verdes Drive North. Reserving unto the GRANTOR, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress, for use by GRANTOR's employees, contractors, delivery services, vendors, maintenance personnel and ancillary service providers, including but not limited to vehicular and pedestrian access, to the former Palos Verdes Navy Housing on, across and over the "USS New Jersey" roadway, as it exists on the date of this conveyance. To the extent the foregoing roadway is close, abandoned, reconfigured or replaced, after the date of this conveyance or otherwise cease to exist within the Property, said easement shall be on, across, and over such other improved or unimproved roads that may exist on the Property after the date of conveyance and which connect to the ."USS New Jersey" roadway not located on the Property and to Palos Verdes Drive North. This easement is subject to the express condition subsequent that it shall remain in effect for so long as it is required, in whole or in part, by the GRANTOR, its successors and assigns. 5. GRANTEE by acceptance of this Quitclaim Deed agrees that the Property is transferred on an "as is, where is" basis without warranties of any kind either expressed or implied. GRANTEE 8 N of 37 04 1066627 further agrees that this conveyance is subject to any and all existing covenants, conditions and restrictions, rights, agreements, encumbrances, easements, rights of way, reservations, and servitudes, whether of record or not. III. CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT 6. GRANTEE shall HAVE AND HOLD the Property, subject, however, to each of the following conditions subsequent, which are for the sole benefit of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and which shall be binding upon and enforceable against GRANTEE, its successors and assigns as follows: (1) For a period of thirty (30) years from September 1, 1998, the Property will be used solely and continuously for educational purposes in accordance with the proposed program and plan of GRANTEE set forth in its Application and for no other purposes. GRANTOR reserves the right to enter and inspect the Property during said period. (2) During the above period of thirty (30) years GRANTEE will not sell, resell, lease, rent, mortgage, encumber, or otherwise transfer any interest in any part of the Property except as 9 /s ok, r� Q4 1066627 GRANTOR may authorize in advance in writing. (3) one year from the date of this Deed and biennially (even years) thereafter for the period of thirty (30) years, unless GRANTOR directs otherwise, GRANTEE will file with GRANTOR a report on the operation and maintenance of the Property and will furnish, as requested by GRANTOR, such other pertinent information evidencing its continuous use of the Property as required by condition subsequent number 1. (4) During the above period of thirty (30) years GRANTEE will at all times be and remain a tax supported institution or a nonprofit institution, organization, or association exempt from taxation under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. (5) For the period during which the Property is used for the purpose for which Federal assistance is hereby extended by GRANTOR or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, GRANTEE hereby agrees that it will 1 10 1Z,, cf 37 Q4 1066627' comply with the requirements of (a) Title VI of the civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. No. 88-352), 42 U.S.C. 92000d et sea.; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. No. 92-318), 20 U.S.C. §1661 et sect.; (C) §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. No. 93-112), 29 U.S.C. §794 et sect.; and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulations (34 C.F.R. Parts 12, 100, 104 and 106) issued pursuant to the Act and now in effect, to the end that, in accordance with said Acts and Regulations, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under the program and plan referred to in condition subsequent number 1 above or under any other program or activity of the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, to which such Acts and Regulations apply by reason of this conveyance. 7. The failure of GRANTOR to insist in any one or more 11 17 o� J 7 /4 04 1066627 instances upon complete performance of the conditions subsequent, terms, or covenants of this Deed shall not be construed as a waiver of, or a relinquishment of GRANTOR's right to the future performance of any of those conditions subsequent, terms and covenants and the GRANTEE's obligations with respect to such future performance shall continue in full force and effect. 8. In the event of a breach of any of the conditions subsequent, whether caused by the legal or other inability of GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, to perform any of the terms and conditions of this Deed, at the option of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, all right, title and interest in and to the Property shall, upon the recording by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of a Notice of Entry, pass to and become the property of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which shall have an immediate right to entry thereon, and the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, shall forfeit all right, title, and interest in and to the Property and in and to any and all of the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereto. 9. In the event the GRANTOR fails to exercise its options to reenter the Property or to revert title thereto for any breach of conditions subsequent numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 5 12 l0 bf 5 7 04 1066627 of this Deed within thirty one (31) years from September 1, 1998, conditions subsequent numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 of said Paragraph 6, together with all rights to reenter and revert title for breach of those conditions, will, as of that date, terminate and be extinguished. 10. The expiration of conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed and the right to reenter and revert title for breach thereof, will not affect the obligation of GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, with respect to condition subsequent 5 of Paragraph 6 or the right reserved to GRANTOR to reenter and revert title for breach of condition subsequent S. IV. COVENANTS 11. GRANTEE, by the acceptance of this Deed, covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that in the event GRANTOR exercises its option to revert all right, title, and interest in and to the Property to GRANTOR, or GRANTEE voluntarily returns title to the Property in lieu of a reverter, the GRANTEE shall provide protection to and maintenance of the Property at all times until such time as the title to the Property or possession of the Property, whichever occurs later in time, is actually reverted or returned to and accepted by 13 /'? o- 37 04 1066627 GRANTOR. Such protection and maintenance shall, at a minimum, conform to the standards prescribed by the General Services Administration in FPMR 101-47.4913 (41 C.F.R. Part 101-47.4913) now in effect, a copy of which is referenced in the GRANTEE's Application. 12. GRANTEE, by the acceptance of this Deed, covenants that, at all times during the period that title to the Property is vested in GRANTEE, its transferees or assigns, subject to conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed, it"will comply with all provisions of the following with respect to the Property: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et secr., including the preparation of environmental impact statements, as required (See 42 U.S.C. §4332); the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (P.L. No. 89-665); Executive Order No. 11988, 44 Fed. Reg. 43239 (1979) reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. §4321 app. at 188-189 (1987), governing floodplain management; Executive Order No. j 11990, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977), reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. §4321 app. at 197-198 (1987), governing protection of wetlands; Federal Property Management Regulations, 41 C.F.R. 101-47.304-13; 41 C.F.R. 101-47.200 et sec., 53 Fed. Reg. 29892 (1988), provisions 14 a0 bf 3 7 a • 3 04 106662 relating to asbestos; and other appropriate guidelines, laws, regulations or executive orders, federal, state or local, pertaining to floodplains, wetlands or the future use of this Property. 13. GRANTEE, by acceptance of this Deed, covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Property herein conveyed or any part thereof that it will comply with the requirements of (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. No. 88-352), 42 U.S.C. §2000d et seg.; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. No. 92-318), 20 U.S.C. §1681 et sect.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. No. 93-112), 29 U.S.C. §794 et sem.; and all requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulations (34 C.F.R. Parts 12, 100,104 and 106) issued pursuant to the Act and now in effect, to the end that, in accordance with said Acts and Regulations, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, or handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under the program and plan referred to in condition subsequent 1 above or under any other program or 15 a / 'of— 37 04 1066627 activity of the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, to which such Acts and Regulations apply by reason of this conveyance. This covenant shall attach to and run with the land for so long as the Property is used for a purpose for which Federal assistance is hereby extended by GRANTOR or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, and shall in any event, and without regard to technical classifications or designation, legal or otherwise, be binding to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, for the benefit of, in favor of and enforceable by GRANTOR against GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, for the Property, or any part thereof. In the event of a breach of this covenant by GRANTEE or by its successors or assigns, GRANTOR, may, in addition to any right or remedy set forth in this agreement, avail itself of any remedy authorized by the violated statute or regulation. 14. In the event title to the Property or any part thereof is reverted to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for noncompliance or is voluntarily reconveyed in lieu of reverter, GRANTEE, its successors or assigns, shall at the option of GRANTOR, be responsible for and be required to reimburse the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the decreased value thereof that is not the result of IG cR=;? of .3 7 04 1066627 reasonable wear and tear, an act of God, or alternations and conversions made by the GRANTEE and approved by the GRANTOR, to adapt the Property to the educational use for which the Property was transferred. GRANTEE shall, in addition thereto, reimburse GRANTOR for damage it may sustain as a result of such noncompliance, including but not limited to costs incurred to recover title to or possession of the Property. 15. GRANTEE may seek abrogation of the conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed by: a. Obtaining'the advance written consent of the GRANTOR; and b. Payment to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of a sum of money equal to the fair market value of the property to be released from.the conditions subsequent as of the effective date of the abrogation: (1) multiplied by the percentage public benefit allowance granted at the time of conveyance, (2) divided by 360, and (3) multiplied by the number of months, or any portion thereof, of the remaining period of 17 ,.?3 of 0 7 04 1066627 restrictions to be abrogated. 16. GRANTEE, by acceptance of this Deed, further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that in the event the Property or any part or interest thereof is at any time within the period of thirty (30) years from September 1, 1998 sold, leased, mortgaged, encumbered or otherwise disposed of or used for purposes other than those designated in condition subsequent 1 above without the prior written consent of GRANTOR, all revenues received therefrom and the reasonable value, as determined by GRANTOR, of any other benefits to GRANTEE deriving directly or indirectly from such sale, lease, mortgage, encumbrance, disposal or use, shall be considered to have been received and held in trust by GRANTEE for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and shall be subject to the direction and control of GRANTOR; but the provisions of this paragraph shall not impair or affect the rights reserved to GRANTOR under any other provision of this Deed. 17. GRANTEE, by the acceptance of this Deed, further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that at all times during the period that title to the Property is vested in GRANTEE subject to conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 is a4 * 37 0 04 1066627 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed, GRANTEE shall at its sole cost and expense keep and maintain the Property and the improvements thereon, including all buildings, structures and equipment at any time situate upon the Property, in good order, condition and repair, and free from any waste whatsoever. 18. GRANTEE, by the acceptance of this Deed, further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that at all times during that period that it holds title to the Property subject to conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed, it shall not engage in, authorize, permit or suffer the extraction or production of any minerals from the Property without the prior written consent of GRANTOR. GRANTEE, by the acceptance of this Deed, further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that should an extraction or production of minerals including but not limited to oil, gas, coal, and sulfur on or under the described Property occur during that period that it holds title to the Property subject to conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed (I) it will hold all payments, bonuses, delayed rentals, or royalties in trust for GRANTOR and (ii) that all net revenues and proceeds resulting from the extraction or production 19 a5 4 37 Z2 X14 1066627 of any minerals including, but not limited to, oil, gas, coal or sulfur, by GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, will be held in trust for and promptly paid to GRANTOR. The listing of certain minerals shall not cause the doctrine of elusdem generis to. apply. Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing the GRANTEE to engage in the extraction or production of minerals in, on or under the Property. 19. GRANTEE, by acceptance of this Deed, covenants that, upon the recording by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of a Notice of Entry pursuant to Paragraph 8 above, all right, title and interest in and to the Property shall pass to and become the property of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which shall have an immediate right to enter thereon, and the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, shall immediately and quietly quit possession thereof and forfeit all right, title, and interest in and to the Property and in any and all of the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, conveying all right, title and interest conveyed to it in this Deed except for encumbrances authorized and approved by the GRANTOR in writing as provided in condition subsequent 2 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed. 20. if the GRANTEE, its successors or assigns, shall cause 20 ,=?, k of 37 Z�' 04 1066627 the Property and/or any improvements thereon to he insured against loss, damage or destruction, or if the GRANTOR requires such insurance while the Property is subject to conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed, and any such loss, damage or destruction shall occur during the period GRANTEE holds title to the Property subject to conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 'set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Deed, said insurance and all moneys payable to GRANTEE, its successors or assigns, shall be held in trust by the GRANTEE, its successors or assigns, and shall be promptly used by GRANTEE for the purpose of repairing and restoring the Property to its former condition or replacing it with equivalent or more suitable facilities; or, if not so used, shall be paid over to the Treasurer of the United States in an amount equal to the unamortized public benefit allowance of Property multiplied by the current fair market value of the improvements lost, damaged or destroyed. If the Property is located in a floodplain, GRANTEE will, during the period it holds title subject to conditions subsequent 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 6 of this Deed insure the Property and any machinery, equipment, fixtures, and furnishings contained therein against loss, damage, or destruction from flood, to the maximum limit of 21 ,.;,? ? of 3 7 04 1066627 2 coverage made available with respect to the Property under §lo2 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. No. 93-234) Proceeds of such insurance will be used as set forth above. 21. GRANTEE further covenants to pay damages for any time period held over beyond the time period stated in a demand to quit possession of the Property at the fair market rental value plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs of the GRANTOR in securing the return of the Property. 22. GRANTEE acknowledges that it has received a copy of the Finding of Suitability to Transfer dated June 2002 and the First Amendment to the Finding of Suitability to Transfer dated November 2003. 23. GRANTEE covenants for itself, its successors and assigns, that it shall not disturb, move or impact the operation and use of the existing groundwater -monitoring wells located on the Property the locations of which are shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, unless specifically approved in writing by the Navy and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. No groundwater wells may be installed for residential, municipal, agricultural, or industrial uses without written approval of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 22 079 of 37 04 1066627 24. GRANTOR covenants for the benefit of GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous substance remaining on the Property has been taken before the date of this Deed. 25. GRANTOR covenants for the benefit of the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, that any additional remedial action or corrective action found to be necessary after the date of this Deed shall be conducted by the United States; provided, however, that the foregoing covenant shall not apply with respect to any release or threat of release caused by the GRANTEE or its successors and assigns. 26. In connection with GRANTOR's covenant made in Paragraph 25, GRANTEE agrees on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, as a covenant running with the land, that the GRANTOR, its officers, agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors shall have the right, upon reasonable notice to GRANTEE, to enter upon the Property in any case in which a remedial or corrective action is found to be necessary after the date of this Deed, or such access is necessary to carry out a remedial action or corrective action on adjoining property. Neither GRANTEE, nor 23 1:2 IT ®F -3 7 04 1066627 &� its successors and assigns, shall have any claim on account of such access right against the GRANTOR or any of its officers, agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors, 24. The right to enter described in Paragraph 26 shall include the right to conduct tests, investigations and surveys, including, where necessary, drilling, testpitting, boring and other similar activities. such right shall also include the right to construct, operate, maintain or undertake any other remedial or corrective action as required or necessary including, but not limited to, monitoring wells, pumping wells and treatment facilities. Any such entry including such activities, remedial or corrective actions, shall be coordinated with the GRNTEE or its successors and assigns, and shall be performed in a manner which minimizes (a) any damage to any structures on the Property and, (b) any disruption or disturbance of the use and enjoyment of the Property 28. In connection with GRANTOR's remedial actions described in Paragraph 25, GRANTEE agrees on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, as a covenant running with the land, to comply with the provisions of any health or safety plan in effect during the course of any such action. 24 z� 04 1066627 29. GRANTEE is hereby notified that the federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) may exist on the Property. 28. Whenever this Deed makes reference to a particular department or agency of the State of California or the United States of America, that reference shall be understood to include successor departments or agencies. 29. GRANTEE acknowledges that it has received a copy of the FOST and all documents referenced therein. 30. The covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Deed and accepted herein by GRANTEE, unless subsequently released, area binding servitude on the Property; shall inure to the benefit of and enforceable by the covenantee, the United States of America, shall run with the land, and shall be binding on the GRANTEE, its successors and assigns. 31. Pursuant to Section 330 of Public Law 102-484, the United States of America will indemnify and hold harmless the GRANTEE from future financial liability arising from the presence of any environmental contamination that may be found on the subject Property due to past Department of Defense use to the extent authorized by said section and public law. Nothing in 25 3/ v� -37 7-Y 04 1066627 this Deed shall he interpreted to require obligations or payments by the United States in violation of the Anti -Deficiency Act. 32. All covenants, conditions subsequent and restrictions contained in this Deed shall run with the land and be binding upon GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, to all or any part of the Property. All rights and powers reserved to GRANTOR by the Deed may be exercised by any successor in function to GRANTOR, and all references to GRANTOR shall include its successor in function. All covenants and conditions subsequent contained herein are for the sole benefit of GRANTOR and may be modified or abrogated by it as provided in the Act. V. SIGNATURES TO INDICATE THEIR AGREEMENT to the provisions contained in this agreement, GRANTOR and GRANTEE have executed this document as the date and year first above written. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Acting by and through the Secretary oftion GRANTOR: By: ;4447 David B. H&kola, Director Federal Real Property Assistance Program, Office of Management U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. 26 3,Q 4 37 zy 04 1066627 GRANTEE ACCEPTANCE The GRANTEE hereby accepts this Quitclaim Deed and accepts and agrees to all the terms, covenants, conditions subsequent, agreements and restrictions contained therein. Marymount College GRANTEE: By: AN* it. lloAd" Thomas M. McFadden President 27 33 of- .3 7 70 04 1066627 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FAIRFAX COUNTY COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA) On this 22nd day of April, 2004, personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, David B. Hakola, Director, Federal Real Property Assistance Program, Office of Management, United States Department of Education, acting for the United States of America and the Secretary of Education, known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on the date hereof as his free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and with full authority and as the free act and deed of the United States of America and the Secretary of Education. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and seal at Fairfax County, Virginia, this 22nd day of April, 2004. _ Notary Public �• fJ� My Commission Expires:�� STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OFLo5 A,Ile.i On this Zq'I` day of r�� 2004 personally appeared before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of California, Thomas M. McFadden, President, Marymount College, to me known to be the same person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on the date hereof as his free and 28 04 1066627 voluntary act and deed for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and with full authority and as the free act and deed of the Board of Trustees of Marymount College. IN WITNESSI have set my hand and seal on this 7 day of rt/ 2004. Notary Public LC 6// 4 My Commission Expires: J,,,X,/ j Zn MONICA ANNIE SHARPE 7= Commission " 3=5=215E Notary Public - Califomia Los Angeles County My Comm. Expires Jun 1, 2005 29 3:5 of -3 �7 FIGURE 2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS 34, *3i 8 ri 6 2 7 a From: Craig Whited [craigwhited@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:50 AM To: cc@rpv.com; stevew@rpv.com; tom.long@rpv.com; Douglas.Stern@rpv.com; Anthony. Misetich@rpv.com; Brian.Campbell@rpv.com Cc: cityclerk@rpv.com; planning@rpv.com; buildingsafety@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Golf Balls - Important Attachments: MM Golf Ball-1.jpg; MM Golf Ball-2.jpg; MM Golf Ball-3.jpg; MM Golf Ball-4.jpg Members of the City Council, I wish to give you the final 20 seconds that I lost during my 2 minutes while bringing my skylight up to the podium. What I brought was the outer skylight which a Marmount golf ball penetrated and was lodged between, see picture 4. I believe that the pictures speak for themselves. If you had allowed me, I would have closed with "can you trust Marymount and its students with your life?" Just imagine if a car had been on the main part of PV East and one of the many Marymount golf balls had been a little shorter. We could have had another Marymount caused fatality. Pic -1 is from the corner of the MM athletic field looking down on PV East Pic -2 is one of the several places of divots on the field Pic -3 is looking downdirectly on the first three horn.es on the PV East Spur, see the skylight on my roof Pic -4 shows the broken skylight with the Marymount Golf. Ball still wedged in it. It took Marymount's former Preident and his Athletic Director tromping over our roofing tiles to view for themselves, and a direct admission from the AD that the golf ball lodged in the skylight came from Marymount, before McFadden stopped denying that Marymount caused this. Craig Whited 31145 Palos Verdes Drive East 3/31/2010 .J NOR a 5 of 5 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:30 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount Initiative From: TOMBARCHAR@aol.com [mailto:TOMBARCHAR@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:53 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Initiative Honorable Council Members, We strongly urge and implore you to block Marymount's expansion efforts and reject the EIR. Marymount's expansion would vastly degrade the quality of life in the beautiful residential neighborhood it stands amid. The college's plan is not compatible with the community. Please, please, thwart their efforts! Thanks very much. Thomas Chargaff Barbara Chargaff 31267 Ganado Drive Rancho Palos Verdes 3/31/2010 '� °�` l C> . From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:30 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount From: Valerie Russo [mailto:rmomscool@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:02 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount To Whom it concerns: I am writing to you regarding the Marymount expansion, which I am against. First I feel that Marymount is not on the up and up with this project. They keep on changing there minds. First there is the issue for the dorms, which they say they don't want any more (But I am sure they will in the future). Pretty much every four year college has dorms. Do they think we are stupid and don't realize this. The students will be traveling up and down the winding roads all hours of the night, after partying or going out to the movies etc. Also the College is 410 parking spaces short. Would you like to have cars parked in font of your house all day and night. Then there is the issue of the 44' high athletic building, which is not compatible with our single family homes. Also were they want to put up the athletic field is not a safe spot. Sure they are going to put up netting, which will look ugly and effect peoples views and still will not stop balls from flying at people when they are driving by. Eight years of construction is to longH The code is year for construction. There are way to many issues with this project. I fell that the college was very sneaky with the four year degree thing and also with there most recent campaign about getting on the ballot. I wondering where they are getting there signatures from? The other side of the hill? No one has come by my house which is close to Marymount college. I hope the City Council will look into this matter more deeply and not be bullied by Marymount college. 3/31/2010 / 0/—' From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:17 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymont College Expansion From: Grace [mailto:GKMalolepszy@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:57 AM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: gkmalolepszy@cox.net; 'Mira Catalina HOA' Subject: Marymont College Expansion To the City Council: I, Grace Malolepszy am one of the many that are against the Expansion. The college is not being truthful and the fact that the land area that it is on cannot handle the buildings. Even after the rains in the pass 2 months or so there were land slides below. If the college has several events at one time the hill cannot handle the traffic or the parking. It is not profitable for the college to stay under the 800 students as it states it would stay under, if it becomes a 4 year institution. There is nothing to hold the students on campus it they have the Dorms there. This has been going on too long. This is not cost effective for anyone. Please stop this now and do not let it go on. 3/31/2010 /C�-/ QQ . From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:04 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount expansion From: Alicia [mailto:ms.mania@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:39 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount expansion Dear Councilmembers, We elected you to protect the rights of all property owners, to abide by the General Plan and enforce the city codes. If personal or institutional development jeopardizes the rights of others, you have the responsibility to defend the rights of the majority. With three major landslides surrounding the Marymount RPV campus, the only east -west artery that is already threatened will definitely be exacerbated by the unnecessary grading the project demands. I think the geological stability of the land should be of paramount concern. We are reminded that the San Ramon Canyon was deemed stable by city geologists before the city spent over $4 million on that unresolved mistake. If the three slides intersect, it could potentially trigger a disaster greater than the Portuguese Bend catastrophe. Regards, Alicia Maniatakis 3218 Corinna Drive 310 377-0201 3/31/2010 / Q � / - From: Mark R Wells [mtwells@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:02 PM To: cityclerk@rpv.com; RPV City Council; Ara Mihranian Subject: Wednesday C.C. meeting and veiled threat Good day. I am providing my newest post from my East R.P.V. blog so that it might be placed in the late correspondence for the City Council members and their Wednesday March 31 meeting. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2010 A Veiled Threat and Some Thoughts The following is from a news article by Ms. Melissa Pamer, a reporter from The Daily Breeze. Naturally, I will have my comments following the article. RPV puts off Marymount College expansion decision until tonight Melissa Pamer Staff Writer Posted: 03/31/2010 11:18:31 AM PDT Want to go? What: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council hearing on Marymount College's expansion plans When: 7 tonight Where: Fred Hesse Park Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd. After nearly six hours of public comment and argument from Marymount College and a neighborhood group that opposes its expansion plans, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on Wednesday put off a decision on the controversial project until tonight. Mayor Steve Wolowicz said tonight's hearing will focus on council members crafting resolutions that would approve - or deny - aspects of Marymount's 10 -year-old effort to build new facilities on its small, aged campus. Tuesday's meeting marked the first time the council had weighed the merits of the college's proposal, which includes a new athletic center, library and other upgrades, with construction spread out over eight years. The project has been through various delays and permutations since it was first proposed in 2000. Last spring, it was approved by the Planning Commission after Marymount dropped the element of the plan that most upset neighbors - on - campus dormitories for 250 students. Since the beginning, the project has generated concern among homeowners who live near the Palos Verdes Drive East campus - though Marymount officials contend they have broader support among city residents. "This is a very divisive issue in our community," Councilman Advertion both sides." Tonight, the council will meet in closed session to discuss the veiled threat of litigation made Tuesday by the college's attorney, Don Davis, who suggested that a newly discussed effort to prevent Marymount from building in future on an undeveloped area of its campus would constitute a "taking." Davis's comment came at the end of a meeting filled mostly with impassioned pleas by the school's neighbors, many of whom urged the council to turn down the project and ask Marymount to build on property it owns in San Pedro. 3/31/2010 ` 'Of— / . "The Marymount Expansion Project is a threat to our way of life," said Lois Karp, who heads Concerned Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, which appealed the project to the council. Karp's group, which is concerned about parking, noise, and operating hours that will extend to 11 p.m., among other things, contends the college's 25 -acre campus is too small for the proposal. A fairly new worry is whether soccer balls from a new athletic field would fly onto Palos Verdes Drive East, causing a danger to drivers. Marymount College President Michael Brophy said he hoped that the project would move forward so that school officials could begin to formally address some of those concerns. "We are aching for you to deny this appeal and set in place a formal advisory group to have a conversation that is constructive, ongoing and sustained," he told the council. Though not before the council, the dorms were clearly on the minds of many members of the public. The college earlier this month announced that it was gathering signatures to place its expansion - including the dorms - before voters in November as a ballot initiative. City officials said this week's meetings on the project needed to go forward despite the possibility of a ballot initiative that could essentially overrule whatever the council approves. melissa.pamer _.dailybreeze.com So it appears that Marymount College's administration may sue the city anyway. The article stated that Marymount's attorney may have made a veiled threat to sue the city of Rancho Palos Verdes over the matter of dorms being built on the campus. At first thought, what Mr. Davis stated may be a 'tell' that the proposed initiative may not be approved of by voters if it qualifies for the November ballot. It is my opinion that because Mr. Davis may have mentioned something about the "taking" of the right to build what Marymount's administration has wanted for its 'primary' goal (I am using "primary" subjectively) of having on -campus housing at Marymount, he is telling the council that Marymount will fail if on -campus housing is not secured one way or another. The is completely as I opined about for some time. Yes, the proposed initiative caught many of us off guard, including me. But the simple fact that the ONLY major difference between the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project now being considered by City Council members and the proposed "Marymount Plan" and the associated initiative process is the spectre of on -campus housing. Now it could also be that Mr. Davis' veiled threat is a way to get the City Council to approve the construction of on -campus housing any time they choose to because they have always had the right to approve the construction of residential units on the campus and they do not necessarily have to follow what the Planning Commission or Staff recommended for the project. I think that there won't be a majority of City Council members who would vote for dorms, especially since Marymount is trying to make whatever the council decides moot, because of the proposed initiative. So it now should be clear to everyone that Marymount has played its hand to the fullest except for publicly admitting that the college will fail if on -campus housing is not offered to future students. Now I know what Dr. Brophy and others will say, but with every action taken by the College's President and supporters since they first publicized that they had applied to become a four - 3/31/2010 07 4 `f year institution, it has been illustrated without much doubt that they are going for on -campus housing or failure of the college. Dr. Brophy and others have: Applied to become a four-year institution and just about everyone knows that practically every four-year college has some type of on -campus or campus adjacent housing for students. Withdrew their request for approval by the Planning Commission for on -campus housing when it was plainly illustrated through actions, considerations, and a very unfortunate tragedy, that the Planning Commission would not vote to support the on -campus housing element of the Project. Initiated a proposed ballot measure and began collecting signatures on petitions for a ballot measure that, if qualified for the November ballot and then approved by voters, would essentially mimic the plan approved of by the Planning Commission AND then allow for on - campus housing EXACTLY as originally proposed by the Applicant in the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project. Provided signals and actions to circumvent the will of the electorate who voted for five members of the City Council to represent them in creating a stable government in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and doing the residents' bidding as representatives of the people, by the people, and for the people who reside and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes. Have not publicly offered to pay one penny of taxpayer -funded possible General Fund demands that their proposed ballot measure would cost the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Continued to seek approval for a grading permit on the Marymount Campus that mimics what the grading would be required to have on -campus housing built, even though that element has been removed from the Project the Planning Commission certified. In essence, they want to grade for dorms whether the City Council members approve dorms or not. They have stated in written materials supporting the proposed ballot measure that the construction of "The Marymount Plan" will take 36 months when they also accepted that the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project is considered to take 8 years to finalize. I was not able to attend the public hearing held on Tuesday March 30. 1 watched some members of the public speak on CATV for the city. I am still sad that too many folks, including the immediate past Mayor, are supporting the increased use of the Palos Verdes North facilities, including having temporary classrooms set up there and having the athletic facilities there. They are all playing with fire in suggesting things that simply can not happen. If these folks wish to get into a tussle with three Neighborhood Councils in San Pedro plus two more Neighborhood Councils in Harbor City (each Neighborhood Council represents between 20,000 and 25,000 households plus the Los Angeles City Planning Department, Los Angeles City Planning Commission, Los Angeles City Council (which already approved a zoning variance at Palos Verdes North to allow for more residential units on the site) plus the reluctance by Marymount to deal with the city of Los Angeles, it will continue to brew discontent between residents of San Pedro and Harbor City and those of us who live in Rancho Palos Verdes. 3/31/2010.,3 of It also allows a NIMBY issue between residents living closer to the campus and residents of the Eastview section of R.P.V. and many residents of the Miraleste area. Our city needs to remain very close friends with the government of Los Angeles and its San Pedro portion so we can all do what is necessary to solve the San Ramon/Tarapaca problems that has the potential to be a terrible problem. If I attend the City Council meeting on Wednesday March 31, 1 will create a post on that meeting. Please do not sign the petition. 3/31/2010 "V 0� < From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:29 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara Mihranian' Subject: FW: Conservation Easement Attachments: pg 4 of notice of Appeal.doc From: jlkarp [mailto:jlkarp@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 1:07 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Conservation Easement Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council Attached is a copy of page 4 of CCC/ME Notice of Appeal written by our attorney on July 24, 2009.(this letter was in the Appendix of our Appeal brochure). I am sending it to you to point out paragraph 5 at the bottom of the page. As I said in our Rebuttal last evening, a Conservation Easement as suggestion would go a long way to making this project more palatable for the neighbors. Our attorney suggested the easement as a condition to the remedial grading permit. Just thought this might be helpful if you had not noticed this item in our Appeal. Lois Karp I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1859 of my spam emails to date. The Professional version does not have this message. 3/31/2010 c� Notice of Appeal July 24, 2009 Page 4 of 10 III. The CUP, Variance, and Grading Permit Findings are Not Supportable. City staff prepared a table (a copy of which is attached) showing how the findings required to support a CUP and variance can and cannot be made for various portions of the proposed Project. This table is not correct that findings can be made that the Project (with its athletic field, tennis courts, athletic building, parking lots, and miscellaneous site grading) is "necessary for the primary use of lot", that it minimizes disturbance to natural and finished contours, minimizes disturbance to biological resources, conforms to grading criteria, and does not allow grading in excess of permissible criteria. Therefore, findings for a grading permit or a remedial grading permit cannot be made. Variance findings that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, that it is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a property right, and that it is not material detrimental to public welfare or injurious to property cannot be met with regard to the athletic field net. In any case, no new CUP, variances, or other discretionary permits should be granted while Marymount remains in violation of its previously granted CUP. Marymount has revised its current plans for the site by removing the proposed residence halls before the Planning Commission could formally vote (although, as discussed below, these changes are not reflected in the EIR analysis), and now requests a remedial grading permit for the area that had previously been proposed as the location for the residence halls. Specific findings must be made to allow approval of a remedial grading permit. (RPVMC 17.76.040(F)(1) However, the requested remedial grading (82,000 cubic yards) is excessive and unnecessary to provide slope stability, and therefore the permit should not have been approved. There was no concern for the stability of this hillside, without development, mentioned until Marymount decided to eliminate the residence halls to ensure Planning Commission approval of the project. The clear intent of Marvmount's request for a remedial grading permit is to ready the site for a future residence halls project. The EIR. must analyze the growth inducing. impact of the proposed remedial grading at the area that was previously proposed for the residence hails. The remedial grading would make future construction in this area easier, in part by removing the hurdle of obtaining an extreme slope permit. If a remedial grading permit is granted (which would remediate the College's past unpermitted activities) it should only be granted on the condition that the remediated area. may not be the site of any future development, and perhaps that it be placed in a conservation easement. a a/ -), From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:29 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: NO MARYMOUNT EXPANSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -----Original Message ----- From: pacific [mailto:pacificgrounds@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:58 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: NO MARYMOUNT EXPANSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hello all, Unfortunately I'm injured and cannot attend tonights meeting. However- I wish to express my TOTAL opposition to the expansion plans for Marymount. I live right below in Medeterrainia- and this will have a huge impact on our quality of life. I don't believe all the lies we have been told in support of this project. PLEASE PRESERVE our peace and quiet here and DO NOT allow this plan. Thank you. /OF/ 1 LISA COFFI Producing Artistic Director lisa@shakespearebythesea.org SUZANNE DEAN Development Director suzanne@shakespearebythesea.org Board of Directors AARON AALCIDES Malaga Bank KATHLEEN CADIEN Bubulubu Creations DAVID GRAHAM Le Lyase Francais de Los Angeles MARGARET SULLIVAN Retired City of Los Angeles RAY WOLFE Consultant, GMAC March 30, 2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Council Members, Its time for Shakespeare by the Seal MADE A PART OF TH_1C Fj�®AT NCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK We are thrilled to be continuing our tradition of presenting quality, accessible and admission FREE Shakespeare performances in parks throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties for our 13th consecutive season. This year, we are proud to present Twefflh Night and Julius Caesar. Both plays will tour to 15 cities for a total of 36 open-air community performances. Shakespeare by the Sea is an annual treasure that has become a family tradition: over 18,000 people attended our productions In 2009 alone. We have been performina annually in RPV for 9 years, but we need your help to return. As you know, last year the City of Rancho Palos Verdes eliminated funding for our event for Mission statement: the 2009 and 10 seasons. Thanks to a partial sponsorship by Malaga Bank we were able to Shakespeare by the Sea's mission is present the pre -scheduled July 5"h performance at Hesse Park. The show was a tremendous to bring new, contemporary and success with over 600 people enjoying the family friendly, free event! classical works to underserved, This year, Terranea Resort has presented us with the opportunity to bring SBTS to their culturally diverse audiences in order to property for one night, if we can acquire the necessary funding elsewhere. If City funding ignite imagination, promote literacy were approved, we would also bring a 2rd production to Hesse Park. We request that the and encourage artistic expression. City of Rancho Palos Verdes sponsor SBTS in the amount of $2000 for these valuable community performances. The deadline for inclusion in our printed materials is May 17, Non Profit ID: 2010. 95-4785457 We hope that you see the value of supporting an organization that focuses its efforts on South Bay families and take pride in knowing that you are helping to bring quality family entertainment to thousands of people in their own neighborhoods. We look forward to hearing from you soon. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact us by calling 310.217.7596. Sincerely, Lisa Coffi Suzanne Dean Producing Artistic Director Development Director Mailing Address: 777 Centre St, San Pedro, CA 90731 o Tel 310.217.7596 0 Fax 310.507.0269 a www.shakespearebythesea.org Shakespeare by the Sea's History in RPV Shakespeare by the Sea has been performing in RPV since 2001. In the 9 years we have toured to this community, we have brought 12 performances to the local audiences at minimal cost to the city: 2001- $1000 for a performance of As You Like It at City Hall (The Avenue underwrote a 2nd performance of The Tempest at the mall.) 2002- $1200 for Much Ado About Nothing at City Hall 2003 $750 for Romeo & Juliet at City Hall 2004 $750 for Two Gentlemen of Verona at Hesse Park 2005 $750 for Othello AND Meny Wives of Windsor at Hesse Park 2006 $750 for Comedy of Errors AND Hamlet at Hesse Park 2007 $1200 for Taming of the Shrew at Hesse Park 2008 $1200 for Midsummer Night's Dream at Hesse Park 2009 $0 for As you Like It at Hesse Park Shakespeare by the Sea 2010 Budget Our 2010 Festival Budget is $236,984 SBTS is offering (2) RPV performances in 2010 worth $14,400. Our request is for $2000. Proposed dates are July 7 at Terranea Resort and July 18 at Hesse Park. It costs roughly $7200 per night for SBTS to tour to the various communities, though only a partial stipend from each City is requested (on average $3000 per night). Throughout the years that SBTS has toured to RPV (either at Hesse Park or City Hall), SBTS has accepted a varying stipend based upon available City funds. Oftentimes we have held dates for RPV, not knowing if funding would come through and have provided multiple shows even when the sponsorship didn't cover one performance. Though the funding has been low, we come back year after year because we love the community, the venues, and know we have become a tradition for hundreds of local families. Please help this family tradition continue. TARGET PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BYTHE SEA JUNE 10 - AUGUST 7, 2010 ADMISSION FREE Timeless Tales,Ticketiess Admission, Priceless Experience. Pack picnic, gather loved ones, and settle in under the stars for a night of classic entertainment. SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA& SUZANNE DEAN Development Director 310.408.7555 suzanne@shakespearebythesea.org www.shakespearebythesea.org T 310.217.7596 F 310.507.0269 777 Centre St, San Pedro, CA 90731 TARGET. PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA TN =Twelfth Night • JC=Julius Caesar San Pedro - Point Fermin Park 8pm TN: Jun 10, 11, 12,24,26, Jul 2, Aug 7 JC: Jun 17,18,19, 25, Jul 1, 3, Aug 6 Newport Beach - Bonita Canyon Sports Park 7/10,7pm:JC • 7/11,7pm:TN South Pasadena - Garfield Park 7/15, 7pm:TN Manhattan Beach - Polliwog Park 7/16, 7pm:JC • 7/17, 7pm:TN Hermosa Beach -Valley Park 7/21,7pm:JC • 7/22,7pm:TN Torrance -Wilson Park's Gazebo 7/23,8pm:JC • 7/24,8pm:TN Laguna Niguel -Crown Val. Park7/25,7pm:TN Carson -Anderson Park 7/28, 7pm:TN Glendale - Glenoaks Park 7/29,7pm:JC Brand Park 8/5, 7pm:TN Lakewood - Del Valle Park 7/30, 7pm:TN Rossmoor- Rush Park 7/31, 7pm: JC • 8/1, 7pm:TN (D. I TARGET PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA AS YOU UKE 111r & tOV119SLABOUKStOST June 11 - August 8, 2009 USHAIESPEARE BY THE SEA& Timeless Comedies. Ticketless Admission. Priceless Experience. 310.217.7596 1 www.shakespearebythesea.org • Community Un 9� aF RWi --------- --- NORRIS Li1,i COASTAL CENTRAL - S PEDRRO SAN PEDRO oNE«POR�T NEIGHBORHOOD TARGET ® auaauc unceiu� `, PACIFICLIFE FOUNDATION "/VSF' 89.9 saperviwr Don Raabe FOUNDATION C o u N Cl E ConoeoPhillips %6 U City Dept of Recreation&Parks Los Angeles Refinery & Councilwoman Janice Hahn 'MALAGA ' 8 A N K 1. Save us a seat up front. Actually, better make it a row. Union Pacific is proud to support Shakespeare by the Sea and the Port Communities. r, RIPF I NOW UA 101 F, Ran, Ar VID .91 UNION PACIFIC Hhheeeell II Il00000... O O O Is anybody out there? 0 r o Shakespeare by the Sea is Looking for Gold Fish. ($100 donors) Donate today.1 www.shakespearebythesea.org OUR MISSION OUR 12TH SEASON - SUMMER 2009 This is a year of great challenge for our patrons as well as SBTS, so we are inviting you tojoin us in a priceless summer filled with laughter, romance & merriment. For 2009, we revisit a pastoral favorite - As You Like It (1598) and take on 'a pleasant conceited comedie' - Love's Labour's Lost (1595), two early examples of the talent of William Shakespeare. As You Like It places love, in all its guises, in a rustic setting peopled with disguised heroines, banished dukes, shephards and motley fools. In the Forest of Arden, the court and the country join together and Shakespeare introduces one of his greatest and most fully realized female characters- Rosalind. Love's Labour's Lost is often thought of as Shakespeare's most flamboyantly intellec- tual play, filled with sophisticated wordplay, puns, and literary allusions in a courtly tale of love versus reason. For the past 12 years, we have enjoyed the privilege of providing quality entertain- ment - free of charge - in neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties, bringing together youth, family and friends for a beautiful summer eve- ning under the stars. Thank you for being a part of these priceless experiences! All the world's a stage! Lisa Coffi Producing Artistic Director a�__ " I C�- Suzanne Dean Development Director To create artistically expressive, theatrical experiences for under -served audiences in culturally diverse communities. To afford actors and audiences unique opportunities to explore the depths of the human spirit in unparalleled emotional and intellectual encounters. n Proudly Supporting Shakespeare by the Sea LOAN CENTER 23670 Hawthorne Blvd., Torr 310-544-7800 • Bauer Financial Inc.*Star Star Rating *Strong Capital Ratios Check us out by visiting one of our locations and have a cup of gourmet coffee on us. PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 2514 Via Tejon, PVE 27450 Hawthorne Blvd., RHE 310-375-9000 310-541-3000 MALAGA B A N K malagabank.com SAN PEDRO 1460 West 25" St., SP 310-732-1100 MEMBER FDIC TORRANCE 2927 Rolling Hills Rd., Torr 310-784-2000 Q EQUAL HOUSING LENDER COASTAL SAN PEDRO NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL "Your voice foryour community" As an official elected part of Los Angeles City we represent your views on matters of local and city-wide interest to the Los Angeles City Government. To find out exactly who we are, what we do and how you can add your voice in making San Pedro, the Harbor and Los Angeles a better place to live, call 310-290-0049 or go on line at www.coastalsanpedro.org Together we can make a difference! Our goal is for members (residents, businesses, churches, organizations) of Central San Pedro neighborhoods to come together in the understanding of local government. The Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council meets the second Tuesday of every month at the Port of Los Angeles High School. Visit our website for more information: www.sanpedrocity.org or call 310-918-8650 We urge you to join us and get involved! PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE & LOCATION INFORMATION 2009 San Pedro - Point Fermin Park 807 Paseo Del Mar AYLI - 8pm: Jun 11, 12, 13, 25, 27, Jul 3, 9, 11, Aug 8 (Grand Finale) LLL - 8pm: Jun 18, 19, 20, 26, Jul 2, 10, Aug 7 (Grand Finale) Rancho Palos Verdes- Hesse Park 29301 Hawthorne Blvd Sun, Jul 5, 7pm: AYLI Malibu - Bluffs Park** 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy Sun, Jul 12, 7pm: LLL Rossmoor - Rush Park** 3021 Blume Dr, Los Alamitos Wed, Jul 15, 7pm: AYLI South Pasadena - Garfield Park 1000 Park Ave Thu, Jul 16, 7pm: AYLI Manhattan Beach - Polliwog Park 1601 Manhattan Beach Blvd Fri, Jul 17, 7pm: LLL Sat, Jul 18, 7pm: AYLI Beverly Hills - Roxbury Park** 471 S Roxbury Dr Sun, Jul 19, 7pm: LLL Hermosa Beach - Valley Park Valley & Gould Wed, Jul 22, 7pm: LLL Thu, Jul 23, 7pm: AYLI Torrance - Wilson Park's Gazebo 2200 Crenshaw Blvd Fri, Jul 24, 8pm: LLL Sat, Jul 25, 8pm: AYLI Laguna Niguel - Crown Valley Park 29751 Crown Valley Pkwy Sun, Jul 26, 7pm: LLL Carson - Anderson Park* 701 E Carson St Wed, July 29, 7pm: AYLI Glendale - Glenoaks Park 2531 E Glenoaks Blvd Thu, Jul 30, 7pm: LLL Lomita - City Hall 24300 Narbonne Fri, Jul 31, 8pm: AYLI Newport Beach - Bonita Cnyn Park Bonita Canyon & Mesa View Sat, Aug 1, 7pm: LLL Sun, Aug 2, 7pm: AYLI EI Segundo - Recreation Park* 339 Sheldon St Wed, Aug 5, 7pm: AYLI Glendale - Pacific Park* 501 S Pacific Ave Thu, Aug 6, 7pm: AYLI * = NEW LOCATION ** = NEW CITY THIS YEAR TO SUPPORT OUR FREE PERFORMANCES, WE'RE ALSO PRESENTING: Hamlet 11 in Little Fish Theatre's Back Lot By Sam Bobrick, Directed by Gia Jordahl June 19 - July 19 Runs Fri, Sat & Sun: 8pm Little Fish Theatre 777 Centre St, San Pedro Tickets: $25 It's a mad, zany parody with a new, happy ending.Think Baz Luhrmann directs Mamma Mia as written by Mel Brooks and set in 1977. As expected, Hamlet mopes, ponders and plots, but ultimately he decides to abandon revenge and embrace a new life of peace, love and happiness. (we've rated this show PG 13) As You Like Shakespeare by the Sea Screening of Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Shakespeare's classic"As You Like It,"introduced by film and stage actor Alfred Molina at the historic Warner Grand Theatre Wednesday,July 8 Tickets: $35 Reception/Film; $10 Film Only ($15 at the door) 6:30 pm -Reception 7:30 pm - Film Introduction by Alfred Molina* 8:00 pm - Screening of "As You Like It" (*presenter subject to change) 310.217.7596 310.217.7596 • www.shakespearebythesea.org www.shakespearebythesea.org SPOTLIGHT ON COMMUNITY MEMBERS We asked some of our audience members to share their Shakespeare by the Sea experiences with us -- how they came to attend our performances, their favorite productions, the most memorable moment, etc. The responses are included throughout the program and serve as a tribute to the power of Shakespeare, whose words are still touching lives even after 400 years. - AARON, MARIE & JOSHUA AALCIDES Marie and I were introduced to Shakespeare by the Sea in 2005 at a masquerade ball to raise funds for future theatrical performances. We arrived in costume, not knowing what to expect. Everyone in attendance was also costumed, and although the event's purpose was to raise funds, everyone was having fun. Marie and I immediately created a relationship with the Board members and the cast. We had a blast, to say the least! We knew Shakespeare by the Sea was something we wanted to be a part of - we were hooked! In 2006 Marie and I joined the Board of Directors of Shakespeare by the Sea. We looked forward to the Board meetings because we knew we were doing something rewarding for the community. So, while grandma took care of Joshua (our businessman in training), we spent time with community members who shared our passion for giving back, developing ways to bring free theatrical performances to the community. "Supporting the Community" In my 23 years of banking experience, I have always been committed to giving back to the community. When I joined the Senior Management team of Malaga Bank in 2007, after proudly displaying my Shakespeare by the Sea folder during my second interview discussing non -profits I supported, I knew that as the leading community bank in the South Bay, it would be supportive of my passion for Shakespeare by the Sea. Malaga Bank has since been a continuous contributor to Shakespeare by the Sea's annual summer performance series. As a bank, we schedule a trip for at least one of the events that our employees attend as a group. Everyone brings blankets, lawn chairs and refreshments, employees and family members of the Malaga Bank team have a wonderful time at the performances each year! As a family, we enjoy going to the performances together each summer. Marie and I want to ensure that Joshua is exposed to diverse areas of the arts, encouraging him to attend the plays with us. He has even expressed interest in acting as a result of his exposure to the Shakespeare by the Sea performances he has seen, proving my point exactly, that Shakespeare by the Sea is inspiring to all who encounter its performances. THE MARINE EXCHANGE Shakespeare by the Sea is a tradition now. We get there early so we can share munchies and enjoy the pre- show activities. We enjoy the humor and interpretation that the actors bring to Shakespeare. They make the plays relevant and come alive. In Shakespeare's day it probably cost a penny to see a play but today we get to see it for free and also get a bit of culture. Thank you SBTS! ART KRISPIN What's great about SBTS is the accessibility of high quality acting in relaxed, outdoor environments. There are few things better than relaxing on a hillside with a picnic and enjoying a fantastic show. It seems that every venue is effortlessly adapted to by the cast of the show. Having been an actor in a couple of SBTS productions I'm well aware of the effort it takes to put up and travel a show like this. I always look forward to the striking costumes and great acting that SBTS brings each summer. Here's to another great season! TARGET, PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BYTHE SEA AS YOU UKE IT JUNE 11 - AUGUST 8, 2009 Lisa Coffi, Producing Artistic Director David Graham, Director ARTISTIC & PRODUCTION STAFF Sara Adelman, Festival Producer Angel Jones, Costume Designer Aaron Jackson, Scenic Designer JR White, Carpenter Aaron Jackson, Prop Master Mallory McLane, Stage Manager Caroline Benzon, Composer Vanessa Perry, Costume Design Assistant Max Wheatley, Sound Technician Bill Ginder, Sound Technician Matt Stillo, Production Intern CAST OF CHARACTERS Duke Senior I Duke Frederick Andy Kallok Rosalind Rachel Levy Celia Tosca Minotto Touchstone Gedaly Guberek Orlando Dominic Pham Oliver Nicholas Nealon Adam I Corin I Jaques De Bois Benjamin Clark Le Beau Dennis Katie Pelensky Charles William Jim Felton Jaques Suzanne Dean Phebe Whitton Frank Silvius Rob Young Audrey Sarah French Amiens ( Hymen Kate Woodruff Felton As You LIKE IT SYNOPSIS by Diana Tallie "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." Nowhere is that sentiment so true as in this romantic comedy. Duke Frederick ousts his older brother and banishes him and his daughter Rosalind to the Forest of Arden. Frederick's daughter Celia, who loves Rosalind more like a sister than a cousin, flees to the forest with Rosalind and Touchstone, the Clown. Before leaving, Rosalind falls in love with Orlando and he with her. Orlando flees his older brother, Oliver, after their servant Adam tells him that Oliver plans to kill him, and Orlando and Adam also go to the Forest of Arden. Frederick, upon finding Celia, Rosalind, and Orlando missing, orders Oliver to find them or face banishment himself. Like the merry men of old, Duke Senior, Rosalind's father, lives contentedly in the forest with his followers — with the possible exception of the melancholy Jaques, who rails against fortune and is determined not to be happy. Nearby are Silvius — a lovestruck shepherd, and Corin, his mentor. The object of Silvius's love is Phebe, a proud and haughty shepherdess. When Rosalind, Celia and Touchstone enter this pastoral world, everything is turned up- side down. Rosalind tries to match Phebe and Silvius, only to have Phebe fall in love with her "Ganymede" persona. She also encounters the lovestruck Orlando, with whom she plays the part of a boy, saying she can "cure" him of his love for the absent Rosalind. The cerebral Touchstone finds himself enamored of the country wench Audrey, and Celia is surprised by an unex- pected wooer. Once in this predicament, Rosalind must find a way to extricate herself — but it won't be easy. Laughter, love, and lunacy combine to produce a romantic finale that should satisfy all. Celebrate in style with Decadent Dining forjust $50 per person. along with a commemorative program. Decadent Dining offered at only three performances - 6/13, 8/7 and 8/8. Reserve your spot by ordering online: www.shakespearebythesea.org JOIN OUR SIG FISH FAMILY Donate and become a member of the Big Fish Family! Funds raised through private donations, corporate, foundation and government grants all help to ensure Shakespeare by the Sea will continue bring- ing high quality performances into your community each summer. WHY DONATE? Without ticket income, Shakespeare by the Sea must rely on your donations and sponsorships to underwrite 100% of the festival. TARGET PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BYTHE SEA tovill's LABOUKAOST JUNE 18 — AUGUST %, 2009 Lisa Coffi, Producing Artistic Director Amy Louise Sebelius, Director ARTISTIC & PRODUCTION STAFF Sara Adelman, Festival Producer Angel Jones, Costume Designer Aaron Jackson, Scenic Designer JR White, Carpenter Aaron Jackson, Prop Master Mae Meier, Stage Manager Vanessa Perry, Costume Design Assistant Max Wheatley, Sound Technician Bill Ginder, Sound Technician Matt Stillo, Production Intern CAST OF CHARACTERS Ferdinand, King of Navarre Benjamin Clark Berowne Rob Young Longaville Dominic Pham Dumaine Nicholas Nealon Boyet Connor Keene Don Adriano Armado Jim Felton Moth Katelyn Gault Sir Nathaniel I Dull Andy Kallok Holofernes Lauren Dean Costard Gedaly Guberek Princess of France Kate Woodruff Felton Rosaline Tosca Minotto Maria Katie Pelensky Katharine Whitton Frank Jaquenetta Sarah French LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST SYNOPSIS by Diana Tallie The King of Navarre, Ferdinand, declares that his court will be devoted to ascetic study for three years, and to minimize distractions, no women will be allowed within a mile of the court. Ferdinand's lords Berowne, Longaville, and Dumaine agree to support the king but point out that he has forgotten an embassy that day with the Princess of France. As they go to meet the Princess, the king's fool, Costard, is sent to Don Armado to re- ceive punishment for breaking the king's commands with the country wench, Jacquenetta. The Princess and her entourage are of- fended when Ferdinand and his lords deny them entrance into the court, and camp in front of the court in protest. One of her lords notices that Ferdinand is attracted to the Princess. Meanwhile, Armado (who is in love with Jacquenetta) makes a deal with Costard to let him off if Costard will deliver a letter to Jacquen- etta. Before Costard can do so, however, Berowne asks him to take a letter to Rosaline, one of the Princess's ladies. Costard manages to deliver Jacquenetta's letter to the Princess and Rosaline's letter to Jacquenetta. Will the correct ladies learn of the correct lords' love? Or will confusion reign? Fol- low this zany play to its conclusion to see if "all's well that ends well"! Join Our Ranks of Raffle Winners! Grand Prize - Las Vegas Getaway 3 Day/2 Night Vacation Package for 2 at the Tropicana, Gold Coast or Riviera Hotels, plus $500 in Casino Benefits. 2nd Place Prize - Dodger Decadence: Set of 4 Dodger tickets behind home plate with parking. 3rd Place Prize - Deluxe Office Chair from Virco 4th Place Prize: - South Bay Stay -cation (Dinner, Theatre and Dessert) J. Trani's Restaurant Gift Certificate ($100), 2 Little Fish Theatre Tickets ($50) and a Port Gelato gift certificate ($20). RAFFLE DONORS A Noise Within Ante's Restaurant Babouch Moroccan Restaurant Barnes and Noble Beach City Grill Boca Wear Bringelson Jewelers Cabrillo Marine Aquarium Captain's Treasure Chest Chicago for Ribs Cliff Wagner and Old No. 7 Cold Stone Creamery Colony Theatre Company Distinctive Edge Drop In Gifts DuBunne Day Spa and Massage Center Godmother's Golden State Pops Orchestra Golf N'Stuff Gourmet Food Basket Henry's Market 10 West Improv Comedy In -N -Out Burger City of Torrance/ James Armstrong Theatre Joanne's Closet Joe and Mike Good Automotive Joe McKinzie La Mirada Theatre Long Beach Playhouse Long Beach Symphony Orchestra Los Angeles Dodgers Los Angeles Zoo Ma Griffe Mulligan Family Fun Center Off the Vine Omlette and Waffle Shop Park Plaza Shell Parkhurst Gallery Pasadena Playhouse Picadilly Corner Pirate Leather Port Gelato San Pedro Cafe Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park Santa Anita Park Starbucks The Admiral Risty The Comedy and Magic Club The Huntington Library The Wild Orchid Theatricum Botanicum - $60 Trani's Restaurant Williams Bookstore Z Fabrique The Fine Print: Grand, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Place Prize Winners will be announced on Shakespeare by the Sea's Closing Night on August 8, 2009. One 5th Place Prize Winner will be announced at each performance and MUST be present to win. Non -5th Place winning tickets go back into the drawing for the Grand Prizes (need not be present to win.) THE ACTING COMPANY BJ Clark (Adam/Corin I Prince Ferdinand) BJ is celebrating his third consecutive summer performing with Shakespeare by the Sea. He appeared as Bassanio in The Merchant of Venice, Lucentio in The Taming of the Shrew and Octavius in Antony&Cleopatra. Recent credits include Bob Dylan in True Dylan and Paddy Noonan in The Irish Murderer as part of the Los Angeles Theatre Academy student directed one act festival. He graduated the three-year acting program at LATA two years ago and has since racked up 10 Shakespeare credits, a New York Musical Festival performance, and countless short and student films. Lauren Dean (Holofernes) Originally from Dallas, Texas, Lauren began her studies at The Hockaday School before continuing on to graduate from USC with a Bachelor of Art's degree in Theatre. Performing since the age of six, Lauren began her career as the Little Bunny FooFoo in a Dallas Children's production. Later credits include Barbara Allen in Dark of the Moon, Helena in A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Aldonza in Man of La Mancha. Suzanne Dean (Jacques) Suzanne has been a Company Member since 2000. Roles with Shakespeare by the Sea: Cleopatra, Beatrice, Olivia, Lady Capulet, Bianca, Queen Elizabeth, Prospero, Kate, and Mistress Page. With Little Fish Theatre: Betrayal, Veronica's Room, The Lady's Not For Burning, The Lion in Winter, Blithe Spirit, Peg & Garrick, Laundry & Bourbon, The View from Anderson Park. Elsewhere LA: Macbeth at TheatRevolution; Les Parents Terrible at ART, Hay Fever, Present Laughter at Long Beach Playhouse. NYC credits: The Glass Menagerie, Crimes of the Heart, and 1984. Elsewhere in the US: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Bus Stop, The Dresser. In the UK: A Coupla White Chicks... at 2005 Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Film/TV: Silk Stalkings, Power Rangers and Another World. Training: BADA- Oxford, Shakespeare & Co., Theatricum Botanicum, The Old Globe, Hofstra University. Jim Felton (Charles/William I Armado) Jim was most recently he was seen at the Long Beach Playhouse as Bill in The Voice of the Turtle, Sam in Wait Until Dark, Algernon in Bunbury, Little John in Tracers and Bert in The Man Who Came to Dinner. A So Cal native, some of Jim's other favorite roles include Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing (Culver City Public Theatre), Chris in All My Sons (Theatre Palisades) and Johnny in The Sting (C.O.L.S.A.C.). He is a graduate of Loyola Marymount's Department of Theatre Arts, and spent a very enjoyable summer in New York studying at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. Kate Woodruff Felton (Amiens/Hymen; I Princess of France) Although it's Kate's first season with SBTS, she has trod the boards at Little Fish Theatre having played Eliante in 2005's critically acclaimed production of The Misanthrope. Long Beach Playhouse credits: Sally in The Voice of the Turtle, Madge in Picnic, Susy in Wait Until Dark and Maggie in The Man Who Came to Dinner. A Long Beach native, Kate has been performing professionally since the age of six. Some of her other favorite roles include Flaminia in The Betrothed (Theatre/Theatre), Ann in All My Sons (Theatre Palisades) and Imogen in Cymbeline (Write Act). Additionally, Kate has provided her acting and vocal talents to the various interactive media exhibits that guide you through the recently opened Las Vegas Springs Preserve just off the "Strip". Whitton Frank (Phebe I Katharine) A California native, Whitton graduated from Carnegie Mellon University in 2006 with a Bachelors Degree in Acting and Creative Writing. She was a member of the ensemble for aproduction of Medea which traveled to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and has been performing in Los Angeles for the past two years. Recent performances include Ophelia in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Mary in One Night Stands and School Girl #1 in Diary of a Catholic School Dropout. Sarah French Katelyn Gault (A Lord I Moth) Katelyn recently graduated from Chapman University with her BFA in Theatre, and is very honored and excited to make her debut with the lovely cast and crew of Shakespeare by the Sea! Chapman credits: The Noh Plays a apan, The Tempest, The Taming of the Shrew, The Trojan Women, Romeo & Juliet, New Beulah, English Made Simple, Barefoot in Nightgown by Candlelight, Bits n'Pieces. With Shakespeare Orange County: The Tempest, Amazons vs. Sirens. Film/TV: The Man in Dark Glasses, A Worthy Gentleman, Vampire Killers, Shellter, and many student films with the Marion Knott Studios. Gedaly Guberek (Touchstone I Costard) A San Diego native, Gedaly makes his debut this summer with Shakespeare by the Sea. Recent acting credits include Eugene, Brighton Beach Memoirs; Feste, Twelfth Night; Puck, A Midsummer Night's Dream; Graved igger/Osric/Barnardo, Hamlet; Lucius, Julius Caesar, Trinculo, The Tempest, Bellhop, Lend Me a Tenor; and Hysterium, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to the Forum. Gedaly also works as a dialect coach and runs a Shakespeare - related website, bardblog.com. Andy Kallok (The Dukes/Sir Oliver ( Dull/Sir Nathaniel) Audiences have enjoyed Andy's Shakespeare by the Sea performances since 2002. He has played kings, dukes, princes, priests, doctors and fools in SBTS's productions and has enjoyed every one. Andy has also acted in several Pick of the Vine one - act programs at Little Fish Theatre, including hanging from a cross in this year's The Crucifixion of Moe and Ira. Other Little Fish productions include Betrayal, Inside My Father's Apple Tree and The Lucky Spot. He is featured in several independent films and has acted locally in theater and cable access TV for decades. Connor Keene (Boyet) Connor was born and raised in Southern California and is currently working towards finishing his degree at the UC Irvine in Drama. His previous work includes: Freddie Filmore in It'sA Wonderful Life: the Radio Play, Phaeton &Hunger in Metamorphosis, Casca in Julius Caesar, Silva Vicarro in Twenty Seven Wagons, and as All the American Men in A Piece of My Heart. Rachel Levy (Rosalind) Rachel originally hails from Seattle and is excited to be back for her 7th Season with SBTS! Rachel was most recently seen on stage in the US premier of 13 O'Clock at Little Fish. She has a BA in Drama from the University of Washington and has also studied theatre in England. Other recent productions include the 2003 - 2008 SBTS Seasons, The Lady's Not for Burning as Margaret, a featured reader in Grace & Competra's Speaking of Stories in Santa Barbara, and the beglittered "Good Fairy' in the Holiday Panto at the Lobero Theatre for two years. Other favorite stage projects include: Cloud Nine, Sincerity Forever, and Cymbeline. Rachel is also a working voice actor and has done several commercials, children's games, and audio books. Live! Currently she can be seen there playing Queen Marie in the children's show Sleeping Beauty and has also played Mrs. Cratchit in their annual production of Christmas Carol, which has been a holiday tradition in Glendale for 47 years (and counting)! Favorite roles include Constance in The Constant Wife, Titania in A Midsummer Night's Dream and Catherine in Proof. Nicholas Nealon (Oliver I Dumaine) Nicholas is from Reno and studied theater at the University of Nevada, Reno before earning his conservatory degree from the American Musical and Dramatic Academy in Los Angeles. Notable productions from Nevada include Dangerous Liaisons, Footloose, Free, Epicene or the Silent Woman, The Medium, and Les Miserables. Nevada film credits include Entity and Mountain Dew with Pop Rocks. He has performed on stage in Waiting for Lefty, and on screen in several short films including Glitches, Etiolate and Marathon here in Los Angeles. Katie Pelensky (A Lord I Maria) Katie is thrilled to be a part of Shakespeare by the Sea's 2009 season, her first venture since moving to Los Angeles from the Bay Area. While in the Bay Area, she worked for Town Hall Theatre Company in Lafayette, where she taught children's theatre and performed in Lend Me a Tenor as Maggie (earning her a Shellie Award nomination), The Weir as Valerie (earning her a Shellie Award), Miracle on 34th Street as Miss Adams, and Baby Be Mine as Actress. Katie is a graduate of Santa Clara University, and in 2005, interned for Shakespeare Santa Cruz as Dorcas in The Winter's Tale, an ensemble member in Twelfth Night, and as Diana in The Antipodes. Dominic Pham (Orlando; Longville) Born in Massachusetts, Dominic has lived in several states, including Oklahoma, before ending up in Los Angeles seeking fame and fortune. Dominic has played Lysander in A Midsummer Night's Dream; Conrad in Much Ado About Nothing; Pindarus in Julius Caesar, Sampson in Romeo &Juliet, Curio in Twelfth Night, Bracken bu ry/Earl of Surrey in Richard III; Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream. Non -Shakespearean roles include: Gary Lefkowitz in 1 Hate Hamlet, Reverend Winemiller in Summer & Smoke; Max Goodman in A Sting in the Tale. THE PRODUCTION TEAM Lisa Coffi (Founder & Producing Artistic Director) Founder and creator of Shakespeare by the Sea, Lisa is happy to be celebrating her 12th Season. She holds an MFA in Theatre Management for CSU, Long Beach and a BFA in Art from CSU, Sacramento. Lauded as "Pedro's Playmaker" in 2003 by Random Lengths, Lisa is living up to her moniker. Not only does she produce the free festival each summer, but she manages Little Fish Theatre as well. Between the year-round demands of SBTS and Little Fish, she works as a graphic designer and splits her time between San Pedro and Newcastle (Sacramento) where she resides with her husband, dog, 3 cats and 2 cows (Nutmeg and Raisin). Sara Adelman (Festival Producer) Sara is a freelance arts management consultant and partner in Vibrant Production Management. Most recently she was the Director of Operations for LA Stage Alliance. Previously, Sara was the Managing Director for Shakespeare Festival/LA. Her experience includes work with EdgeFest, LA Theatre Works, Geffen Playhouse, Actor's Gang, Manhattan Theatre Club and the Williamstown Theatre Festival. She holds an MFA in Production Management & Technology from UCLA and a BA in Theatre Studies from the University of Connecticut. David Graham (Director - As You Like It) David is a native of Atlanta, GA and relocated to Los Angeles to pursue his dream of being poor and hungry. In the actor's tradition, David has drifted from here to there and had manyjobs - including BMW salesman and gravedigger. You may have seen David in the Long Beach Playhouse's production of The Nerd or as Henry in the Little Fish Theatre's recent production of The Lion in Winter. In 2003, David directed Romeo &Julietfor SBTS, The Merchant of Venice and The Taming of the Shrew in 2007, Antony &Cleopatra and A Midsummer Night's Dream last year. He is taking it easy this year, with only one production. David's other acting credits include The Fantasticks, As You Like It, The Pirates of Penzance, Deathtrap, and She Loves Me. Amy Louise Sebelius (Director - Love's Labour's Lost) Amy Louise was last seen on the Shakespeare by the Sea stage as Kate in Taming of the Shrew back in 1999. Acting roles include: Inez in No Exit (Rude Guerilla), Eleanor in King John (Southern California Shakespeare Festival), Julie in Miss Julie (Players Theatre), Lula in the Dutchman, herself in White Trash Catholic Circus (her one -woman show), and the resident villain, Ian Sidious in the Holiday Melodrama (The Garage Theatre), Ursula in Much Ado About Nothing (Alabama Shakespeare Festival). As a director, credits include The Lover and The Dumbwaiter (The Garage), Medea (OCHSA), The Jungle Book, Star Wars, and The American Girls. Amy Louise teaches acting, theatre history, Shakespeare, and improvisation at the Orange County High School of the Arts, Santa Ana College, Santiago Canyon College, and South Coast Repertory. She is a graduate of the LA Theatre Academy, CSU Long Beach and the University of Alabama. Aaron Jackson (Scenic Designer) Aaron's New York credits include: Boxfor The Genesius Theatre Guild, The Sex & Love Monologues for the Riant Theatre and A Leopard Complains of Its Spots for Amphibian Productions. Regional Credits: I Love a Piano and Almost Maine for The Phoenix Theatre (Phoenix, AZ), and The Boys Next Door for The Texas Star Theatre (Granbury, TX). Other credits include designs for The Jubilee Theatre (Ft. Worth, TX), Theatre OUTlanta (Atlanta, GA), Little Fish Theatre (San Pedro, CA), The Powerhouse Theatre (Santa Monica, CA), and The WB Television Network. In addition, Aaron works as an Illustrator and Concept Artist with a client list that includes Stiletto Entertainment, Cartoon Network, IMAG Productions, and Mercedes-Benz among others. He has also worked as a Scenic Artist for film, television and theatres across the country. Currently he is the staff Scenic Artist for UC Irvine/ Claire Trevor School of the Arts where he is designing The Threepenny Opera for the fall. This is Aaron's fifth season with SBTS. Angel Jones (Costume Designer) Angel has been designing and costuming shows for almost 20 years. She's a licensed cosmetologist specializing in period hair and make up. She has designed shows from cinema to stage and everything in between including weddings, fashion shows and special events. Her credits span Southern California from Ventura to San Diego and even across the states in New York. Design credits include: Noises Off, Into the Woods and The Pageant of the Masters. Already living and breathing costume and design, she began her own costume rental business, Wenches and Warriors, nine years ago in Ventura. William "Bill" Ginder (Sound Technician) This is Bill's third season as part of the engineering team for Shakespeare by the Sea. He has worked as a sound engineer for live music performances and live recordings of local musicians, The Taste of San Pedro, Music by the Sea, Norris Theater, and the Warner Grand. He also builds and repairs audio equipment, tube theremin and tube amps. Bill has also worked as a jazz and blues drummer and has an AS from EI Camino. Max Wheatley (Sound Technician) Max has been doing sound since 1980 when he put together his first sound system. Max has served as a sound technician for many San Pedro venues such as the Taste in San Pedro, the Warner Grand, the Sheraton, Music by the Sea, Janice Hann's inauguration and LA Wood. Vanessa Perry (Costume Assistant) Vanessa is a professional seamstress with a degree in fashion from Bauder College. She has been sewing for over 20 years and has designed everything from women's wear to tailoring and designing of men's suits. A former military wife, Vanessa has traveled around the world and lived in wonderful places such as Spain, England and Alaska. She is new to the theatre, but is eager to be apart of this exciting new world. Mallory McLane (Stage Manager - As You Like It) Originally from Charleston, SC, Mallory moved to California three years ago. This is Mallory's first season with Shakespeare by the Sea. Stage Management credits include: Grease, West Side Story, A Chorus Line, King Lear, The Pirates of Penzance, The Grapes of Wrath, Balm in Gilead and The Diviners. She graduated from Savannah College of Art and Design with a degree in media and performing arts. Mae Meier (Stage Manager - Love's Labour's Lost) Mae lives in Orange County and is a student studying for her Stage Management Certificate at Fullerton College. She's stage managed several shows including, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Pippin, A Piece —c. -1y Heart, Peter Pan, Anything Goes, Fools, My Fair Lady, Exit the Body and Hair. GARTHY NTS `w .::..4 �!t IH IRAHIS l rr A LA 7 Gr9 �"tJGAT� .- gAKE1�� AND SOUP KITCHEN Specializing in homemade pastries, cakes, cobblers, cannolis and creme puffs. Also serving fresh sandwiches, panninis, wraps, soups, salads, meatloafs and more. Healthy foods for healthy appetites at reasonable prices! 7th & Centre, Downtown San Pedro 99Out In Memory of Ed Cotter - Beloved director, actor and sup- porter to many of us at Shake- speare by the Sea and Little Fish Theatre. Ed passed away on February 16,2009 leaving a huge creative void. Ed, we will miss you. In Memory of Gene Warech Wonderfully witty and wry, Gene was always very supportive of theatre and tickled pink with our efforts here in San Pedro. Gene passed away on March 16, 2009. As a reviewer and a friend, he will be missed. CORPORATE AND FOUNDATION BIG FISH I They're both BIG FISH in our book! Blue Whale Target Dolphin LA City Dept. of Rec & Parks Mermaid ECF of Boeing, CA KCRW LA County Arts Commission The Norris Foundation Pacific Life Foundation Union Pacific Trigger Fish Central SPNC Coastal SPNC ConocoPhillips Griffith Company Angel Fish Mimi Teller Photography Godmothers Saloon Griffith Company Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Plains All American Pipeline Swordfish AI Larson Boat Shop ERA Golden West Realty Councilwoman Janice Hahn Davies Medical Group Friends of the Parks, Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach Women's Group Random Lengths The Whale & Ale Sunfish Bay Cities National Bank Bloch -Hoskins Real Estate Services Bubulubu Creations Delio Orthodontics Fastlane Transportation Magriffe Marine Exchange The Corner Store INDIVIDUAL BIG FISH 1/1/09 to 5/29/09 Dolphin Rob & Helen McMillin Angel Fish Kathleen Cadien Peter & Jenny Hutchen Ken & Jane Krick Reinhold Family Foundation SWORD FISH Larry Burks Kathleen Bursley Otis Ginoza & Michele Reniche Craig & Judith Huss Allen & Pam Munro Phyllis Pellezzare Joe Pfeifle Ralph Staunton United Way SUN FISH Joe Cain Dave Campbell Harry Hartman Erik & Heather Larson Roderick & Crystal Macdonell Pat Mills Lisa Rehrig Sherie Tyler Ray & Lee Wolfe Fillmore & Sharon Wood GOLD FISH JMartin Anderson John Auld Angeline Barnes Mary Ellen Barnes George Beck David & Madhu Berman David Blood Bill & Delia Boehle Steve Cox & Jennifer King Tony & Callie Dean Paul Deanda Robert & Sandra DeLossa Patricia Diefenderfer Clay & Kelli Elliott John & Debra Evans George & Barbara Gleghorn Chuck & Anna Hawley Frances Hocutt & Anne Meredith Fay IBM International Foundation The Johnson Family Neil Katz Geneva Martin Matt & Dorothy Matich Paula Mullenix Julie Ohara Mike & Laurie Paolozzi Doug & Pat Patterson The Poplawski Family The Pulte Family Stephan & Anne -Marie Quintero Kenneth & Cathy Ragland Ric & Kathy Roberts Tom & Donna Sheridan Joyce Tindall John & Kathleen Tipich Stanley & Joni Tom In Memory of Gene Warech Roxanne Wong Bonnie Wyckaert FLYING FISH Charlene Arno Netta Avineri Ruth Barrett Al & Karen Basiulis Mark Bauman Linda Berens Jane Brandt-Berent Tim & Tracy Burke Paul & Joan Cirillo Pete & Teresa Costa Matt & Katie Covill Susan Davis Lawrence & Shirley De Graaf Steven Deuel Barry & Sheba Faust Global Impact Carl & Ruth Green Scott Hammond & Linda Campbell Fred Hanson Scott Hartman Keith Jones Midge Kuster James Linker Mary Lu Mike & Rosa Mace Deeder & Janice McConnell Karen McDaniel Juergen & Victoria Milczewski Richard Murphy & Lucia Coulter Norman & Jane Myers Dency & Moira Nelson Hugh Pendleton Carl & Paula Perry Vanessa Poster Kim Reynolds Norie Roeder Robert & Ann Rosado Robert & Jennifer Rosenfeld Donna Russell Rod Stephens Ray Waters Joy Weston Luanne Wolfrum Ed & Molly Zuckerman STAR FISH Deborah Austin Steve & Namale Baker Paula Bauer Warren & Sharon Carlson Niki Christopher Bruce Clancy Paul & Kathy Cohen Don Costa & Marion Pesusich Leland & Diane Craig Gene Duley Linnea Eades Linda Eberle Linda Eremita Mike Fabian & Sue Schmidt Kathleen Falk Edward Feng Terri Ann Ferren Erwin & Sue Fishman Ken & Karen Frey Irwin Friedman Fran Fulton John & Catherine Gebhart Liz Giffen-Glad Anna Greenleaf Sandra Gunn Tony Hale & Tammy Minion Brenda Hargrave Jason & Leah Heiss Jennifer Henrikson Jessica Hill Steve Jacobsen Leonard & Sherry Jacobson Albert & Miranda Jelenic Carla Johnson Tom & Sonja Kalman Nancy Kalthoff Andy & JoAnn Kostelas Art & Noreen Krispin Bill Leighton & Sarah Adams Russell & Brenda Lemley Suzanne Luke Ray & Patricia Lynch Perry & Alice Lynn Peter Mattingly Jack & Thelma Meier Al & Dee Michaloski Dwight & June Moberg Marilyn Montenegro Luke & Jan Mullins Mary Murphy Patricia Nangle Susan Neighbors Connie Nelson J & K Nobilione Nick Orchard The Parszik Family Wendy Penate Guillermo & Sheila Quinones Ludwig & Dorothea Rattelmeier Mary Rodriguez Ilse Roffler James Ryan Margaret Shannon Beverly Sherman Dorothy Siedler Joy Slothower Cole Standish Mike & Rita Stavros Bill & Caitlin Szieff Tony & Pat Trutanich Betty Wheaton Beth Wiley Ben Willet & Megan McMullin Ian Wittkopp & Ann Garrett SEAHORSE The Crawford Family Todd Hanson Michele Johnson Misturu Kido Jeff Lester Larry & Joan Malukas Josefina Mercado Jon & Michelle Parsley Erica Payne Heidi Spring Dana Takamoto Shakespeare by the Sea Staff LISA COFFI Producing Artistic Director lisa@shakespearebythesea.org SUZANNE DEAN Development Director Suzanne@shakespearebythesea.org MELANIE JONES Artistic Director, Little Fish Theatre melanie@littlefishtheatre.org KATIE PRICE Webmaster & Admin. Assistant katie@shakespearebythesea.org Board of Directors AARON AALCIDES Malaga Bank MARIE AALCIDES ELIZABETH BRAZIL Gerbera Event Planning KATHLEEN CADIEN Bubulubu Creations DEBORAH A. RUIZ Titan Outdoor MARGARET SULLIVAN Retired City of Los Angeles RAY WOLFE Consultant, GMAC Festival Committee MARTY BARRERA KEVIN DORMAN LINDA KENNERSON MARY RODRIGUEZ SHARON ROSENBERGER JANET SIMON YNETTE HOLST ELIZABETH WARREN Shakespeare by the Sea 397 W 11th St., San Pedro, CA 90731 www.shakespearebythesea.org T 310.217.7596 F 310.507.0269 These wonderful folks donated after our show opened last year. ANGEL FISH Dr. C. Alan Bittner SWORDFISH Jan Anderson Kathleen Bursley Mike & Margo Geesing Craig &Judith Huss Stacy Jones Paul & Kathryn Magers Joe Pfeifle SUNFISH Joe Cain Martha Hynes Alan & Liz Johnson Rod & Crystal Macdonell Dana McLemore Allen & Pam Munro Carol Risher Bart Thiltgen & Laura Fields Elizabeth Warren Ray & Lee Wolfe Georgeann Wyatt Geoff Yarema GOLD FISH Ron & Joan Arias Michael Beasley Sandra Bradley Jane Brandt-Berent Ann Costa Katherine Doughtie Kathy Engelhardt John & Debra Evans Bill Ginder Eric Gonzales Cody Hale Helen Hemmingsen Margaret Jindera Jeff Lester Rachel Levy Ron & LaVon Malin Laura Marks Greg & Amy Miller Russell Noel Pure Art- Desi Geronimo Barry & Beverly Read Lisa Rehrig Jonathan Resnick Kim Reynolds Kristine Rickerl Peter Sanford Debby Shallenberger Shawn Steel Paul Skolnick Carsten Spencer Stanley & Joni Tom Geoff & Doreen Welborn Max Wheatley Deric Wong Fillmore & Sharon Wood Bonnie Wyckaert Herb & Arlene Zimmer FLYING FISH Any Laminating Service Anna Andersen Carol & Roger Applegate Jo Black Linda Brown Tim & Tracy Burke Anthony & Diane Cole Doris Connolly Mike & Katherine Coolidge Robin Cox Michael & Karen Czap Sean Diana De Marti Louis & Suzanne Dominguez Barry & Sheba Faust Rudi Fruth Keith Havener Jason & Leah Heiss Richard Hermann Gerald & Elfriede Johnson Mary Kalista Neil Katz & Gail Robillard Janet Kuney Chuck & Marie Lamb John Lamborn & Sanam Dabiri Andrew Lippman Charles & Phoebe Loos Jim Loveless Luke Millick Daniel Mulville Richard & Sandy Nichols Pete & Margot Novak James & Linda O'Donnell Kenneth & Cathy Ragland Dave Robinson Irene Sharpe Sharon Sharpe Douglas & Sherrill Truax Priscilla Wilta STAR FISH Sarah Adams Elizabeth Anderson Paula Barksdale Tom & Jennifer Barrett Joe & Sandy Bosnich Cecilia Cabrera Jerry & Joyce Cannon Maria Cardinale Ruth Casteel Nikica & Annette Ciketic Joseph & Elvia Clarke Karen Clyne Peter Coffee Paul & Kathy Cohen Lionel Cone Leland & Diane Craig Jason Daly Diana Dowds Marcy Downes Joanne Dragich Matt Ducey Gene Duley Stanley Dunn & Linda Brown Linda Eberle Cathy French Jim & Nicki Godes Jeanne Grant Preston Griest Joyce Griffin Katherine Hardin Monica Heeran Rich Henke & Rena Tishman Connie Iacono Eileen Ivers Leonard & Sherry Jacobson Carla Johnson Julia Kazarian Armin Kleinboehl Griselda Lancaster Steven Lemire Jill Cary Martin Tom Maxey The McColl Family Jack&Thelma Meier John Miller Mary Murphy Debra Myrick -Williams Patricia Nangle Jessica O'Bannon Jessica O'Hare Cecilia Platz Lucy Quigley Ludwig & Dorothea Rattelmeier Christian & Emily Rayburn Robert & Mona Reddick Dave Robinson Susan Sabatine Gemma Scharfenberger Brigitte Schuegraf Ann Shaw William Siebert & Denise Johnson Suzanne Sinclair Charles Stevens Ed & JoAnn Storti Paul & Lynda Strand Philip Strout Lowell Thomas Pamela Thompson Greg & Patricia Urueta Sal & Nancy Ventimiglia Tom & Sue Walsh Nancy Webber Jessica Wertel Carl & Barbara Westerlund Brian Whitten Bonnie Winters SEAHORSE Mark Allen Angela Almeida James & Susan Bukowski Crofton Family Ken & Karen Frey Anna Greenleaf Frank Lopez & Kimberly Mitchell Adrienne Hatrick Larry & Joan Malukas Mary Mason Josefina Mercado Mena & Sarah Moreno Lisa Scranton Damian & Carrie Snipes Florence Swiger Rosemary Wade Jennifer Weaver Charlotte Wilson Dan Wites These items and more available at each performance.(while supplies last.) Shake-nParP by the SPA (310) 372-7207 www.mimiphoto.com Travel Mug - $5 teller rosicky PHOTOGRAPHY Ralph Bloch Juliana Hoskins Residential & investment Sales Rental Property Management 732 W 9th St, #206, San Pedro www.Bloch-Hoskins.com ,r t BL (HOSMS REAL ESTATE SERVICES JHPROPERTY MARAGEMENT OVER 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE 310-519-3899 FAST LAME TRANSPORTATION,INC, PATRICK L. WILSON President 2400 East Pacific Coast Highway • Willmington, CA 90744 TEL: (562) 435-3000 ext. 102 FAX: (562) 432-4399 Email: pwilson@fastlanetrans.com To another successful summer program from Shakespeare by the Sea! Councilwoman Janice Hahn 15'h District City of Los Angeles Phone: (310)732-4515 www.1acity.org/counci1/cd15 Morgan and Vanessa moments after their engagement at Little Fish's production of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare -Abridged. VANESSA POSTER I started going to Shakespeare by the Sea productions 5 years ago. I love that the plays are free and in parks accessible to people all over Los Angeles County. I always put cash into the actor's collection basket, I send a donation every year and have even made a notation in my estate plan that a gift be made after my death to Shakespeare by the Sea. Each summer, I organize eclectic groups of friends to go see Shakespeare by the Sea and other productions. It's fun to see which friends show up to which show. We have potluck picnic dinners, bring blankets and lawn chairs and enjoy quality live theater and enchanting company. Last summer we finally made it to the Little Fish Theatre for The Complete Works of William Shakespeare... Abridged. We arranged a pre -show dinner at the Whale and Ale across the alley: my boyfriend, Morgan; his parents; his sister and her husband, a high school friend; his girlfriend, two other close friends and two friends visiting from Germany. Usually, I do all the planning, but Morgan asked if he could make the dinner reservations... since his parents were among the guests, I didn't think twice about this. As we pulled into the parking lot, my parents drove up. That was odd, as they had not RSVP'd to be included in the evening's plans. I shrugged it off and proceeded to act as hostess and greet our guests as they took their seats at the large table. As soon as everyone was settled, Morgan stood up and started reciting a poem he had composed. I sat down in my seat as I realized I was about to be proposed to. He pulled out a lovely ring that had belonged to his mother. I kissed him, and in front of family and friends, said an enthusiastic "YES." After dinner, we walked across the alley to the show and our front row seats, where I was chosen to be Ophelia and blinded the audience with my scream and the gloriously reflecting diamond ring on my finger. Shakespeare by the Sea and Little Fish Theatre have a special place in my heart for MANY reasons! 22 THE DEL CAMPO FAMILY Shakespeare by the Sea is a family tradition. My beloved Angie and I have enjoyed this free summer time treat at Point Fermin Park for over ten years. Our family appreciates literature, art, music and theater, too. Our son, Armand, had no choice but to join us in our love of Shakespeare by the Sea. At three months old, we packed, swaddled -up and carted him along with us in his stroller for an evening in the park by the sea. As he grew into a toddler we used his diaper bag as an impromptu booster seat for a better view of the action onstage. Never one to want to miss out on all the action, Armand has up -graded to utilizing our cooler for premium package seating, with snacks, drinks and sundry kid stuff for alternate amusement. Now eight years old, Armand is already looking forward to enjoying another season of the Bard's classics. He stated that he loved watching A Midsummer Night's Dream the most. One day, Armand will grow to realize that writing high school and college term papers on the classics are short work due to his early exposure to free, dynamic and dramatic theater by the sea. The action sequences in Macbeth, and the characters portrayed in The Tempest are also among our family's favored performances. With open air seating, vendors, picnics and free - roaming environment—there's never room for a dull evening at Shakespeare by the Sea. This season of summer time fun, we expect to join other members of our extended family and friends at Point Fermin Park for another round of free entertainment, merriment and cheer. Angie and I dread the day that Armand will relegate us to the front row benches because we'll be embarrassing him out on the town with his date. That is our legacy and our summer time tradition that we look forward to sharing with successive generations of family and friends. Damien A. Delio, D.D.S. 827 Deep Valley Drive Suite 302 Rolling hills Estates California 90274 (310) 377-6895 tel (310) 541-1675 fax www DelioOrthomom GRASSROOTS EXPERIENCE AND MULTI -MEDIA SOLUTIONS DELIVERING EFFECTIVE RESULTS FOR YOU! ElClasidcado. .. . Fwh1. an.a.wd audian Navin. nnIinw wn avara.n CASTLE ROCK WINERY 20o6 MENDOCINO COUNTY PINOT NOIR - 2008 California State Fair 4► GOLD MFDALWINNFR, BEST OF SI IOW. BEST' VALUE, and f BEST OF CALIFORNIA.. j This elegant and medium - bodied wine has delicate aromas of violet and rose petals, complex flavors and long silky textures, with layers of strawberry and raspberry. Proudly Supporting Shakespeare by the Sea and Little Fish Theatre Visit our website at www.castierockwinery.com SINCE 1902 Helping to Build a Strong Community by Supporting Admission Free Shakespeare by the Sea I k You! Shakespeare by the Sea Salutes AL LARSON BOAT SHOP for their continued support. 1046 S. Seaside Ave, Terminal Island www.larsonboat.com 1 310-514-4100 Timeless Comedies. Ticketless Admission. Priceless Experience �IZEJ LLS MEMORIAL PARK Part of the Neighborhood Since 1948 For information on Pre -arrangements and all burial options please call (310) 831-0311 or visit us at www.greenhillsmemorial.com MSee works of local artists in the gallery. VV . New exhibits quarterly. Gau . ...... Discover a unique treasure trove in the Studio Boutique. Enjoy the beauty of our garden with a dramatic view of the ocean and Catalina. 1al i Available for your next special event. Don't miss TEA TIME DIAS - tea, tea sandwiches, patries and more. Second Sundays quarterly. 3624 SOUTH GAFFEY STREET • SAN FEDRO 310.547.2154 • www.magriffegalerie.com Gallery Open: Tue - Sun I Iam - 3pm e THE CORNER STORE PEGGY & BRUCE LINDQUIST 1118 W. 37th St., San Pedro Ph (310) 832-2424 • Fax (310) 832-4356 established • 1923 manneWeb Site: www. mxsocal ora exchange of Southern California a„on_y,o ga+izarion JOYCE TINDALL Manager, Accounting Services Angel's Gate Park 3601 S. Gaffey St., #803 Post Office Box 1949 San Pedro, Ca 90733 Direct 310-519-3128 Fax: 310-241-0300 24 Hour: 310-832-6411 E-mail: jt0mxsocal.org CALMET SERVICES, INC BILL KALPAKOFF General Manager 7202 Petterson Ln./P.O. Box 2137 Phone: (562) 259.1239 Paramount, CA 90723 Fax: (562) 869.6091 bkalpakoff@calmetservices.com Jack Babbit -. Bay Cities National Bank The Community Bank of the Soutif Bay Sal Sotomayor Executive Officer www.baycitiesbank.net 28902 S. Western Ave. Rancho Palos Verdes CA, 90275 Tel: 310.832.1984 Fax: 310.519.8315 ssotomayor@bcnb.net 25' visit www.hbfop.org for more information Preserving, improving and promoting the use of Hermosa Beach parks and recreation programs for the benefit of the entire community. ._ r3 Proudly • • • Shakespeare'bilh- sea'.Ll� (4� .• Congratulations & Best Wish *-s Don Knabe Chairman Pro -Tem Supervisor, Fourth District County of Los Angeles www.l<nabe.com Pr oWly yr ppordes Shalkospo rrt lby LIQ S!tl G APNIC 0-- UCH Graphic Design & Printing ! that stand the test of time... _------------. .-s< ...and meet the bottom line. 1302 S. Pacfic Avenue San Pedro 310.519.1442 Shakespeare by the Sea is Looking for Gold Fish. ($100 donors) Become a Gold Fish today! www.shakespearebythesea..org Tjf .max �- 1 E RA," Golden West ici ! RealtyThe ' Krill Team I www.sellingsanpedro.com I � 10»�48»188 y 117 8 6er#1e St. Sere Pedro G APNIC 0-- UCH Graphic Design & Printing ! that stand the test of time... _------------. .-s< ...and meet the bottom line. 1302 S. Pacfic Avenue San Pedro 310.519.1442 Shakespeare by the Sea is Looking for Gold Fish. ($100 donors) Become a Gold Fish today! www.shakespearebythesea..org WEEKLY HALF-HOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE FILM AND TELEVISION WORTH WATCHING 7TH EFT R E AT M E N T "W recent guests James Toback Tim Disney Steve McQueen Tony Gilroy Ellen Kuras Jody Hill James Gray Tim Reid and Tom Dreesen Barry Jenkins Danny Boyle David Fincher Sally Hawkins Diablo Cody : Ed Zwick - 4CCRWHosted by Elvis Mitchell Live on KCRW 89.9 fm Los Angeles- Wednesdays 2:30-3:00 pm OR podcast and on demand at KCRW.com 1r, When you shop at Target, we contribute 5% of our income to support education, social services, and the arts. Since 1946, we've supported communities in small and large ways, from helping local nonprofits to providing disaster relief. Today that 5% adds up to over $3 million a week. Doing good is easy when doing good is automatic. DO 5% GOOD. OTARGET.COM/COMMUNITY sponsorship opportunities Please mark your level of sponsorship, fill out the sponsorship and payment information and return to address listed below. o BLUE WHALE ($50,000+) Corporation becomes Headline Presenter of festival (Jerico presents Shakespeare by the Sea). Company recognition and logo placement on all media and print collateral: radio, newspaper, billboards, posters, brochures, flyers, etc. Premiere placement of full color ad in festival program. Dominant signage at event. Recognized as Headline Presenter in all radio spots and public service announcements. SBTS website home page banner with link. Inclusion of logo and recognition in all email blasts. Public recognition at each event. Opening night VIP invitation with gourmet picnics and reserved seating for 50. Program listing as Blue Whale Headline Presenter. o MARLIN ($25,000+) Corporation becomes Supporting Sponsor of festival. Prominent placement of logo on all print collateral: newspaper, billboards, posters, brochures, flyers, etc. Full color ad in festival program. Signage at event. Logo and link on website and email blasts. Public recognition at each event. Opening night VIP invitation with gourmet picnics and reserved seating for 25. Program listing as Marlin Supporting Sponsor. o DOLPHIN ($10,000+) Corporation becomes Associate Sponsor of festival. Placement of logo on all print collateral: newspaper, posters, brochures, flyers, etc. Full color ad in festival program. Logo and link on website and email blasts. Recognition at each event. Opening night VIP invitation with gourmet picnics and reserved seating for 10. Program listing as Dolphin Associate Sponsor. o M ERMAID ($5000) Logo on all print advertising. Full page color ad in festival program. Listed as official sponsor in press releases. Logo and link on website and inclusion in email blasts. Recognition at opening night event. Opening night VIP invitation with gourmet picnics and reserved seating for 6. Program listing as Mermaid Sponsor. 2008 Opening Night of Antony & Cleopatra 310.217.7596 www.shakespearebythesea.or9 n Loves Labour's Lost, 2009 o TRIGGER FISH ($2500) Logo on all print advertising. Half page color ad in festival program. Listed as sponsor in press releases. Logo and link on website and inclusion in email blasts. Opening night VIP invitation with gourmet picnics and reserved seating for 4. o ANGEL FISH ($1000) Half page ad in festival program. Logo and link on website. Opening night VIP invitation with gourmet picnics and reserved seating for 2. o SWORDFISH ($500) Quarter page ad in festival program. Opening night VIP invitation with reserved seating. o SUNFISH ($250) Business card sized ad in festival program. Opening night VIP invitation with reserved seating. sponsor & payment information business name name address city, state, zip phone email please charge my __visa __mc __amex __disc credit card card # exp. sec code name as it appears on signature 0 My check is enclosed, payable to Shakespeare by the Sea 0 I'd like to stay anonymous, no ad or listing please Return completed form with payment By Mail: Shakespeare by the Sea 777 Centre St, San Pedro, CA 90731 By Fax: 310.507.0269 questions? Contact: Lisa Coffi, 310.619.0599 lisa@shakespearebythesea.org By Kari Sayers For its second romantic comedy this summer, Shakespeare by the Sea has again thrown caution to the wind and chosen the politically incorrect "Merchant of Venice," which opened last week at Point Fermin Park in San Pedro. It will play Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights through July 14 in repertory with "The Taming of the Shrew," before going on tour throughout the Los Angeles area. The two plays mark the company's 10th anniversary, and although "The Taming of the Shrew" makes spousal abuse a laughing matter and "The Merchant of Venice" furthers the stereotype that Jews are sly money lenders and hate Christians, neither play focuses on these societal dilemmas but rather on the triumph of love. In "Merchant," Shylock's Jewishness is not the point. He is simply the archetypal villainous miser who loves his ducats more than his own daughter. Directed by David Graham, this "Merchant of Venice" is a traditional production with beautiful Renaissance costumes by Valerie Wright and a minimal but functional set by Aaron Jackson -- it's minimal because the actors have to set it up and dismantle it every night. The acting in "Merchant" is even, and each actor pays meticulous attention to the ever -important articulation, highlighting Shakespeare's poetic language without being artificial and stilted. In fact, this is the best and certainly most clear and accessible Shakespearean production this reviewer has seen in a long time -- from the moment the melancholy title character Antonio (played by Jaimie Roedel) and his friends take the stage. Optimistic that his ships will come in and bring him wealth, Antonio borrows money from the shrewd and scheming Shylock (Patrick Vest) to help his friend Bassanio (Benjamin Clark) woo the rich heiress Portia (Betsy Roth) in style. Loyal and kind, Roedel's Antonio displays profound love for Bassanio and remains resigned and stoic when he receives news that his ships have been lost at sea. He then calmly accepts Shylock's claim for a pound of his flesh. Dressed in black and sporting a black beard, Vest cuts a believable villain who insists on a strict interpretation of the law. He grows more and more cruel and malevolent, and although he professes his own humanity in his famous "Has not a Jew eyes ..." speech, it is clear he wants to kill Antonio in revenge for the times Antonio has wronged him in the past. In a gorgeous pink -and -white gown, Roth looks regal and poised as Portia, and after she has disguised herself as a young male lawyer, she convincingly and stylishly delivers her famous speech on the virtues of mercy. In a matching pink gown, a pretty Brittney Kalmbach also carries herself well as Nerissa, Portia's lively lady-in-waiting. The odd "casket" scenes, in which Portia's suitors must choose the casket that contains her picture to gain her hand in marriage, are equally effective and entertaining. Director Graham plays the Prince of Morocco with great comic appeal as does Andy Kallok as the Prince of Arragon. Of course, since this is classical comedy, it is clear that Bassanio will pick the right one. In the end, the various lovers will find each other, and love will triumph over greed and injustice. "The Merchant of Venice" plays at 8 p.m. tonight, July 5, 7, and 13 at Point Fermin Park, 807 Paseo Del Mar, San Pedro. The play will continue at various Los Angeles venues through Aug. 10. All performances are free. For more information, call 310-217-7596 or go to shakespearebythesea.org. Kari Sayers is a freelance writer based in Rancho Palos Verdes. Daily Breeze MAKING A DIFFERENCE 6/22/2007 Timeless Tragedy in By Shirle Gottlieb, Correspondent THOUGH IT'S certainly open to debate, "Hamlet' is probably the most beloved of Shakespeare's tragic heroes. Since 1602 when it was written, "Tragedy of Hamlet" has been translated, updated, adapted and performed all over the world. In addition, the demanding part of the Prince of Denmark has become a challenge for actors everywhere to test their dramatic skills. Though I've seen myriad interpretations of "Hamlet" over the years, I was anxious to see how Shakespeare by the Sea handled this immortal drama - which is playing in repertory with "The Comedy of Errors" through Aug. 12. I wasn't alone. Hundreds of people flocked to beautiful Point Fermin to bask in Shakespeare's words, the park's natural surroundings and the sunset over the ocean. And it's free, courtesy of Shakespeare by the Sea, a company whose mission is to make The Bard come alive for young and old in the South Bay area. Just because its free doesn't mean it's amateurish. Quite the contrary. This is a first-rate production of working professionals who demonstrate their talents under the informed, high-spirited direction of Josh Costello. The success or failure of this classic tale of murder, mayhem, madness and incest rests on the shoulders of the actor portraying Hamlet, and Mark Joseph is simply sensational. A member of California Repertory Company in Long Beach, Joseph commands the stage from his opening scene on the ramparts (the one with the ghost of his father) through his dying words at the end of the play. Press -Telegram a Beautiful Setting "HAMLET" What: Shakespeare by the Sea's production of the classic tragedy Where: Point Fermin Park, 807 Paseo del Mar, San Pedro When: 8 p.m. Saturday, July 14 and Aug. 11. Tickets: Free Information: (310) 217-7596 or www.shakespearebythesea.org Hamlet (Mark Joseph) and Ophelia (Rebecca Lincoln) Almost everyone reading this review knows the story: Something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark! Out of blind ambition and lust, Uncle Claudius (Don Formaneck) kills his brother, the king, Hamlet's father. Then in less than two months, he connivingly seizes his brother's throne and marries Hamlet's mother Gertrude (Jill Cary Martin), the king's widow. When the ghost of Hamlet's father demands revenge, Hamlet - feeling completely helpless - delivers his world famous monologue ("To be or not to be") and feigns madness. From this point on, tragedy is heaped upon tragedy until the bloody, awful end. In spite of its dark, inevitable plot, there's a lot of humor in "Hamlet," as there is in all of Shakespeare's writing. In this case, Chris Roberts is terrific in his portrayal of the dithering old Polonius. Also enjoyable is the good-natured give-and-take banter between Laertes (Aaron Sherry) and Hamlet before their relationship gets thwarted and the three parts played by John E. Farrell (the Ghost, Player King and wise old gravedigger). As for Ophelia, Rebecca Lincoln is a vision of virginal beauty as the tragic love of Hamlet's life. Barbara Suiter and Jim Van Over play off of each other well as manipulated students Rosencrantz and Guildenstem. And Crystal Sershen portrays Horatio, Hamlet's loyal steadfast friend. Although Valerie Wright's lovely costumes suggest that this version of "Hamlet" is set in the 19th century, Aaron Jackson's functional set is completely timeless. Kudos to Martin Noyes for his bang-up job as fight director. Everyone knows the deadly outcome of the duel between Hamlet and Laertes, but the gripping scene is so realistic, the audience is completely captivated. Take my advice and don't miss "Hamlet" Grab a warm sweatshirt and blanket, pack a picnic and head for San Pedro. Shirle Gottlieb is a Long Beach freelance writer 7/9/2006 www.shakespearebythesea.or9 • 31 0.21 7.7596 "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is Funny! By Tom Fitt Every 16 -year-old about to embark on his/herjunior year of high school must attend one of the many South Bay performances in the coming weeks of Shakespeare by the Sea's "A Midsummer Night's Dream." By this time next year, your adolescent mind will be befuddled with the musings of J.D. Salinger, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner (no commas), and innumerable, insufferable poets whose works and names you will forget in a fortnight. Little fun in that. Better to spend a free evening (bring a blanket) in the outdoors with the Bard. The summer -long productions began last week at Point Fermin Park in San Pedro. Through Aug. 7, Shakespeare by the Sea troupe performs both "Dream" and "Antony & Cleopatra" in Rancho Palos Verdes (Hesse Park), Irvine, Long Beach, South Pasadena, Manhattan Beach (Polliwog Park), Hermosa (Valley Park), Torrance (Wilson Park), Laguna Nigel, Carson (Community Center), Lomita (City Hall), Newport Beach, Lawndale (Jane Addams Park) and Glendale. A respectable and encouraging crowd braved a cool evening next to the historic lighthouse Friday in San Pedro. As it should be, the production was spirited and funny, once ears became adjusted to the language that once was English. Go online before attending, as a quick Google will help you keep the stories and the characters straight (19 names, most of which are unpronounceable -- can you say "Philostrate"? Sounds like the reason I can't go to the bathroom at night). Here's the story (if you self -medicate, now's the time): Theseus wants to marry Hippolyta, Queen of the Amazons. Egeus complains that daughter Hermia wants not to marry Deme- trius because she's in love with Lysander. Hermia's friend Helena has the hots for the Big D. A bunch of these characters head into the forest and encounter Oberon and Titania, the King and Queen of the Fairies (redundant?). Love potions are dispensed, confused affections are displayed, who's going to marry whom -- you really gotta take notes. Regardless the problems most 21 st century Americans have with the language of Shake- speare, the multitudinous cast, the unexplained appearances of fairy queens and kings, "Dream" is funny, thanks to the authentic performances of the cast. They get it, and they communicate the humor with great sight gags. Scott Hartman is Oberon, the Fairy King. Bianca Swan is Titania, the fairy queen. They are laughable upon first appearance and the play grows funnier the longer they remain onstage. The show is like watching "I Love Lucy" in Japanese. You will laugh even though you have no idea what is being said. This weekend, it's "Antony & Cleopatra" at Point Fermin before the shows go on the road throughout the South Bay. Given the fine performances of the actors of "Dream" (the same who will perform A&C), another cathartic theatrical adventure is no doubt in store. No yuks in this one, though, what with the asps and such. Many die at the end. The best way to track where and when presentations of this year's Shakespeare by the Sea performances will take place is to call 310-217-7596 or visit www.shakespearebythesea.org. The price is right -- it's free. ER a�eader 6/19/2008 www.shakespearebythesea.or9 • 31 0.21 7.7596 THIS SUMMER, THEATER GROUP SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA WILL PERFORM TWO PLAYS AT POINT FERMIN PARK... UNDER THE STARS STORY BY DENNIS LIM, MORE SAN PEDRO ❖ PHOTOS BY SEAN HILLER, MORE SAN PEDRO Brooke Wood, who plays Silvia in "Two Gentlemen of Verona," prepares for rehearsal of the Play. Ben Brannon, below right, play- ing the role of Proteus, dukes it out in a sword fight with Scott Rose, who plays Valentine in William Shakespeare's "Two Gentlemen of Verona." ith the magnificence of a setting sun behind it, the loud squawk of birds overhead and the con- stant crash of waves not too far away, San Pedro's Shakespeare by the Sea program started its seventh season at Point Fermin Park this month. For patrons of the classic plays, the pro- duction is a chance to catch a quality the- ater production for free. For actors, the summer production is a chance to sharpen their acting skills in one of theater's most challenging settings: the outdoors. SHAKESPEARE/54 Nathan Cambridge transforms into his character, Launce, before rehearsal of "Two Gentlemen of Verona" at Point Fermin Park. 4..;..;. w w w. s h a k e s p e a r e b y t h e s e a. o r g • 3 1 0. 2 1 7. 7 5 9 6 • Shakespeare by the Sea is the only annual admission free outdoor theatrical event that serves the entire South Bay • 2007 was our 10th Anniversary • over 21,000 people attended in 2007 • since 1998, we've performed for over 108,000 people s • audiences have grown over 700% in 10 years • only 7% of our funding comes from government grants • volunteers have donated over 37,000 hours of their time to Shakespeare by the Sea • we've performed in 39 different parks covering 60 square miles in LA and Orange County • we have presented 16 of Shakespeare's 34 plays Q.3 Coo An oleo 9(Ti*mto Thursday, July 4, 2002 AsThey The first Shakespeare fans saw his works outdoors. Now's your chance to see them as intended. Shakesperae by the Sea Point Fermin Park, 807 Paseo del Mar San Pedro, (310) 217-7596 www.shakespearebythesea.org Shakespeare Tour '02 Founded in 1998, Shakespeare by the Sea, which begins its repertory season with five weeks at San Pedro's Point Fermin Park, takes its productions to beachside parks all over the Southland. The professional company contains both experienced Shakespearean actors and those just breaking into the Bard business. Because of the park locations, expect plenty of families, children and even the occasional dog (out, damned Spot!). Despite the little ones, this professional troupe doesn't tinker with Shakespeare, consistently presenting traditional productions, set in the original time period. And, in selecting the murderous "Macbeth" for the repertory, Shakespeare by the Sea has definitely gone PG -13. Food Pack a picnic to enjoy alfresco, or hot dogs, nachos, hot chocolate or coffee at the concession stand. Amenities A 220 -degree view of the ocean and the Point Fermin Lighthouse serves as backdrop, so wear warm clothing to ward off the nippy ocean breeze. Bench seating around the open-air band shell is available on a first-come basis, or bring beach chairs and blankets to lay out on the surrounding lawn. Indoor restrooms and port -a -potty facilities. Street parking or lot on Paseo del Mar. Tickets FREE "Much Ado About Nothing" runs Friday, July 12, 18, 20 and Aug 17 at Bpm. "Macbeth runs Saturday, July 11, 13, 19 and Aug. 16 at 8pm. Shakespeare by the Sea alos tours regional parks July 21 through Aug. 15, performing in Rancho Palos Verdes, Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Wilmington, Signal Hill, Manhattan Beach, and Newport Beach. It Right: Suzanne Dean. Below: Patrick Vest and Stephen Schilling from Shakespeare by the Sea. www.shakespearebythesea.org 9 31 0.21 7.7596 z �4. orj: LOCALNEWS SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 2005 SEAN HILLERIMORE SAN PEDRO The women behind the scenes of Shakespeare by the Sea are Rachel Maize, festival producer, left, Lisa Coffi, producing artistic director, Netta Avineri, production assistant, and Suzanne Dean, development director. funding. This year's budget mainly comes from private and corporate donors. In staging the plays, the women usually rely on an army of volunteers, actors who basically donate their time and creative donations of services to help make the festival a reality. The women all maintain other jobs while they Beefing up Shakespeare Players have added more cities to their tour thanks to additional staff and a $30,000 grant By Paul Clinton MORE SAN PEDRO Armed with a heftier budget and buffeted by additional staff, the women of Shakespeare by the Sea have expanded their summer series for two classic plays from the Bard. The group will offer 34 performances of The Merry Wives of Windsor and Othello in 11 cities from Malibu to Laguna Niguel. In addition to adding six new tour cities for the summer performances, the group hired three new staff members. With their burgeoning success, the festival's founders uncovered new challenges in managing the logistics of a theatre festival sprawling across such a wide geographic span. "We were drowning in details," said Lisa Coffi, who conceived the festival as a master's thesis at Cal State University, Long Beach. This year, with a new private grant, Coffi work on the festival. Coffi is a graphic designer. Dean produces film and video commercials. Maize waits tables at a Long Beach restaurant. Avineri teaches at a Hebrew school. This year, the women have also enlisted San Pedro photographers Ricardo Aguero and Elizabeth Braslow, and filmmaker Rob Fielder brought in backup. The nonprofit group secured a $30,000 grant, split in half over two years, from the California Community Foundation. Using the first chunk of funding, Coffi hired Rachel Maize as the festival producer and promoted Netta Avineri to production assistant. Avineri had been a volunteer. "A festival of this size works better with these (additional) people," said Suzanne Dean, the group's development director. The festival, now in its eighth season, had fairly humble beginnings. In 1998, the festival staged A Comedy of Errors at Point Fermin Park for three weeks and drew an audience of 3,000. The festival is expected to draw 15,000 over this season's nine weeks. The festival's budget has swollen to $150,000 from the $6,000 it cost to put on the first year's shows. In 1998, Coffi secured a grant from the los Angeles Cultural Affairs Department, which has since cut back its arts to document the festival. The four women lean on each other to pin down the details of staging the plays. Organizing the shows usually takes on a whirlwind pace. "It all happens at an amazingly fast clip," Maize said. w w w. s h a k e s p e a r e b y t h e s e a. o r g ® 3 1 0. 2 1 7. 7 5 9 6 what the critics are saying "It was luck, and a bit of love, that brought this bright, energetic, inspiring theatre maker to San Pedro, where others before her [Lisa Coffi] have given up ship. She has already made San Pedro into a theatre town -- a feat no one before her has managed to pull off." -- RANDOM LENGTHS "Just because Shakespeare by the Sea is free doesn't mean it's amateurish. Quite the contrary." -- PRESS TELEGRAM "We thought we'd have a couple hundred people turn out and we ended up having almost 1,000 people attend," said lana Barbier, Cultural Arts Coordinator for the city. "There was a real desire for this kind of production In the community." -- NEWPORT BEACH DAILY PILOT "This is the best and certainly most clear and accessible Shakespearean production this reviewer has seen in a long time." -- DAILY BREEZE "Shakespeare by the Sea focuses on traditional productions that include beautiful period costumes and some fine acting. " -- PALOS VERDES PENINSULA NEWS "This is a wonderful opportunity to introduce my children to Shakespeare that I could not otherwise afford." -- M. KEMP, LONG BEACH www.shakespearebythesea.org d 31 0.21 7.7596 SHAKESPEARE FROM PAGE 53 Unlike in enclosed theaters, where moods can be manipulated with sounds and light, here thespians have to wrestle every minute of the audience's attention away from the natural distractions. "Working here makes me feel fresh," said Andy Kallok, who plays the Duke of Milan in "Two Gentlemen of Verona." "There are no special effects, no lighting, not even a curtain. It's pure acting. Everything the audience feels, everything they think about, it all has to come from the actor and the quality of our performance," he said. That challenge and the energy that comes with working in a small company is what motivates most of the cast - made up of mainly professional actors - to take part in a two- month job that organizers admit pays little. Two hours before every performance, the cast members busily assemble their own sets, set up their own lights, sound system and props. "People here do this job for the love of theater," said Rachel Levy, who plays Lady Antonia and an outlaw in "Two Gentlemen of Verona." "No casting director is going to see us here. Most of us have other jobs which enable us to do this. But I don't consider this work, this is pure enjoyment for me." Begun seven years ago as research for a graduate school thesis on theater management, Shakespeare by the Sea's days of meager budgets trace back to its start. Lisa Coffi, director of the program, then a graduate student at California State University, Long Beach, wanted to put into practice all of the theories and lessons learned in the classroom. Driving along the coast, Coffi stumbled onto the bandshell at Point Fermin Park Daily_ MAKING A Breeze DIE EE RE NCE SEAN HILLERWORE SAN PEDRO Clockwise from left, Andy Kallok, left, and Scott Rose act in a scene. Pooka, a dog playing the role of Crab peeks out from backstage. kathleen Buczko and daughter Emily, 8, try to stay worm during opening, night. Kallok and Rose talk in a scene from "Two Gentlemen of Verona" in Point Fermin Park. and immediately envisioned the Shakespeare productions. From the start, it was a success. Her first show, with some soliciting by local John Olquin, attracted more than 3,000 people. From then on, the crowds kept coming. An average night brings in a crowd numbering in the hundreds. A good night, brings in more than 1,000. "I never thought this would grow into something so big," Coffi said. "I wasn't even sure anyone would show up for the first show. But boy did they." The growth has been substantial since its founding. Seven years ago, the play, only shown in San Pedro, had a budget of $6,000. Now, the troupe produces two plays with an $80,000 budget, and travels with them, performing throughout the South Bay. Most of that budget comes from grants, sponsorships and individual donations. But times were not always so cheerful. In April, Coffi had to consider what Shakespeare by the Sea would be like without the sea. Slapped with an unexpected bill for $18,741 by Los Angeles Recreation and Parks, the group gave serious thought to relocating to Torrance the center of its operation. Faced with smaller budgets in the wake of state cuts, the department planned to stop waiving park usage fees, even for nonprofit groups such as Shakespeare by the Sea. But with its own $30,000 deficit associated with the normal production of the play, Coffi came within two weeks of relocating the festival to Torrance. Torrance offered not only to waive the usage fees, but also to give it free advertisement and utilities. Coffi, however, worked out a deal where the fees were reduced, and Councilwoman Janice Hahn paid the remaining cost. "It would have been devastating to leave the city where we started," Coffi said. "I love this bandshell. We put so much work into this place. We changed the way people saw it from some dangerous place at night, to somewhere you want to take your family to see a play. "Here I am, one person with this idea and look how many thousands of people have been touched by it. It's neat, and I don't want to see that go away." www.shakespearebythesea.or9 9 31 0.21 7.7596 "Complete Works... Abridged" is filled with quick wit By Jeff Favre There are plenty of high school students, as well some theatergoers, who would much prefer that the romantic tragedy "Romeo and Juliet" be condensed to 10 minutes, or that bloody "Titus Andronicus" be presented as a three-minute TV cooking show segment. Seeing that niche to be filled, Adam Long, Daniel Singer and Jess Winfield in the 1980 s developed The Reduced Shakespeare Company, which has produced its shortened version of the Bard's plays for 20 years - and digested other classics for quick consumption. Always enjoyable, despite a couple of overly elongated second -act sections, "The Complete Works of Shakespeare (Abridged)" is currently in the custodial care of Shakespeare by the Sea and director Gia Jordahl (nee Inferrera). Appearing in the parking lot of San Pedro's Little Fish Theatre - better to be a bit chilly than melt in the heat of the non -air-conditioned theater - the cast of three retain the Reduced Shakespeare Company's spirt while making the production theirs by adding current pop culture references and several other personal touches. Jordahl's relaxed pace, even when the action gets rushed, creates a jovial atmosphere between the players and the audience, particularly in the first act, which includes many of the funniest moments of the 100 -minute performance. Dressed in yellow, red or orange tights, Chuck Taylor gym shoes and white tunics, Cary Jordahl, Rendon Ramsey and Perry Shields plunder through Shakespeare's 37 plays, beginning with "Romeo and Juliet." The multitude of roles are differentiated by raggedy wigs, simple frocks and a few props that appear to have been purchased at a 99 -cent store. The highlight of the opening segment is the famed balcony scene, for which the balcony is re-created by Shields pulling an oval clothes hamper with the bottom removed up to his chest. When he leans on the plastic rim of the hamper, it indeed resembles a balcony. Those who have never seen these abridged works may wonder how it's possible to shoehom them into one production. One shortcut is to pack all 16 comedies into one story, told with the aid of cartoon drawings. The comedies section proves that Shakespeare used the same plot devices numerous times -and that he loved to use mistaken identity and long -lost siblings. Another wonderfully funny segment is "Macbeth," which the trio performs with Scottish accents as thick as a seven -layer chocolate cake. Add to that the prefix "mac" in front of most words and you have fodder for many laughs. The second act is almost entirely "Hamlet." The scripted audience participation runs a bit long for a small payout, but that's merely a slight bump on the way to a rousing finish, when the short" Hamlet' gets done even shorter - as well as backward. Its evident by the injection of proper meaning to the text that the actors are well -versed in Shakespeare. As a reminder, Shields offers one of Hamlet's soliloquies with grace and power, which reminds the audience that, all jokes aside, Shakespeare was a remarkably talented writer. Gia Jordahl understands the key to "Abridged" is to have fun, and her cast clearly is doing just that. There are plenty of interactions with the audience, the music choices are clever and the set designed by Marissa Parr - dominated by pages from the "Complete Works of Shakespeare" pasted to the floor and walls of the stage - is whimsical. Granted, this production is no substitute for the real thing, which also is produced by Shakespeare by the Sea. The company is offering "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Antony & Cleopatra" this summer at multiple venues. But "The Complete Works of Shakespeare (Abridged)" is a fun companion piece. Press Telegram 6/30/2008 www.shakespearebythesea.org 31 0.21 7.7596 A Handy List of Things to Bring to our Outdoor Performances. • FAMILY & FRIENDS • SWEATSHIRT - most venues are on the coast - it gets damp and chilly. (Pants, close -toed shoes and layered clothing recommended.) • BLANKETS - one to sit on and one to wrap up in. • LOW SLUNG CHAIR - Point Fermin is the only venue that has bench seating available. All other venues are open, grassy areas/slopes, • $ MONEY $ - to purchase snacks, sweatshirts, raffle tickets, and to donate at the end of the show. Shakespeare by the Sea is grateful for the support provided by the following corporations and foundations. ON -l' Communi TARGET.. Foundation Conoco"Phillips ` 76 Los Angeles Refinery 41(rc-, Rw:) LA 69.9 THE PORT B/VSF° CQASTAL ...SAN ... < ,, O • BUILDING ICA icPACIFICLIFE FOUNDATION ISI MALAGA NOR R Is e A N K FOUNDATION supervisor CENTRAL Don Knabe SANT POEDRO COUNCIL LA City Dept of Recreation & Parks & Councilwoman Janice Hahn Shakespeare by the Sea in association with the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs presents As You Like Shakespeare by the Sea Screening of Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Shakespeare's classic "As You Like It," introduced by film and stage actor Alfred Molina at the historic Warner Grand Theatre. Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:30 pm Grand Annex Pre Screening Reception 434 W 6th St, San Pedro, CA 90731 7:30 pm Film Introduction by Alfred Molina* at the Warner Grand Theatre 478 W 6th St, San Pedro, CA 90731 8:00 pm Screening of "As You Like It" By William Shakespeare. A Shakespeare Film Company Production adapted and directed by Kenneth Branagh. Tickets: $35 Reception/Film; $10 Film Only ($15 at the door) Tickets & Info: www.shakespearebythesea.org 310.217.7596 Proceeds support Shakespeare by the Sea's Z009 admission free productions of "As You Like It" and "Love's Labour's Lost." Shakespeare by the Sea is able to offer a rare opportunity to see this film on the big screen thanks to the generosity of Kenneth Branagh and HBO Films. 'Please note that presenter is subject to change. _5[ fe rndv00 `o rn b — CL r N V O d N Z N E O N 0 C 1 C w c!1 F-+ 0 � s L a r cn M CO t%1 Q LU V) " LU 2 m W Cz 0 I a O 60 'sem 0 Li t 0 TARGET. PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA AS YOU UKE 1Y & LOVE'S LABOUR'SLOSY June 11 - August 8, 2009 Timeless Comedies. Ticketless Admission. Priceless Experience. USHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA& Shakespeare by the Sea in association with the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs presents As You Like Shakespeare by the Sea Screening of Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Shakespeare's classic "As You Like It," introduced by film and stage actor Alfred Molina at the historic Warner Grand Theatre. Wednesday, July 8, 2009 6:30 pm Grand Annex Pre Screening Reception 434 W 6th St, San Pedro, CA 90731 7:30 pm Film Introduction by Alfred Molina* at the Warner Grand Theatre 478 W 6th St, San Pedro, CA 90731 8:00 pm Screening of "As You Like It" By William Shakespeare. A Shakespeare Film Company Production adapted and directed by Kenneth Branagh. Tickets: $35 Reception/Film; $10 Film Only ($15 at the door) Tickets & Info: www.shakespearebythesea.org 310.217.7596 Proceeds support Shakespeare by the Sea's Z009 admission free productions of "As You Like It" and "Love's Labour's Lost." Shakespeare by the Sea is able to offer a rare opportunity to see this film on the big screen thanks to the generosity of Kenneth Branagh and HBO Films. 'Please note that presenter is subject to change. _5[ fe rndv00 `o rn b — CL r N V O d N Z N E O N 0 C 1 C w c!1 F-+ 0 � s L a r cn M CO t%1 Q LU V) " LU 2 m W Cz 0 I a O 60 'sem 0 Li t 0 TARGET. PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA AS YOU UKE 1Y & LOVE'S LABOUR'SLOSY June 11 - August 8, 2009 Timeless Comedies. Ticketless Admission. Priceless Experience. USHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA& Cz 0 I a O 60 'sem 0 Li t 0 TARGET. PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA AS YOU UKE 1Y & LOVE'S LABOUR'SLOSY June 11 - August 8, 2009 Timeless Comedies. Ticketless Admission. Priceless Experience. USHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA& AJ'la A` 2j. NIA TARGET PRESENTS FREE SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA Shakespeare by the Sea continues its tradition of presenting professionally crafted admission -free productions that are accessible to people of all ages and all walks of life. We're performing in 16 different locations throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties -- so we're sure to be coming to a park near you! Opening June 11 - As You Like It Banished daughters, battling brothers, and motley fools meet in the Forest of Arden. What starts out wrong, love will turn right in this playful tale of love conquering all. AtOpening lune 18 - Love's Labour's Lost The young King of Navarre requests his men give up women for books just in time for the arrival of the enchanting , Princess of France and her gal -pals. It's love versus reason and all bets are off in this bold and bawdy romp, Performance & Location Schedule I@. San Pedro - Point Fermin Park South Pasadena - Garfield Park Torrance - Wilson Park's Gazebo Lomita - City Hall 807 Paseo Del Mar 1000 Park Ave 2200 Crenshaw Blvd 24300 Narbonne AYLI - 8pm: Jun 11, 12, 13, 25, 27, Thu, Jul 16, 7pm: AYLI Fri, Jul 24, 8pm: LLL Fri, Jul 31, 8pm: AYLI Jul 3, 9, 11, Aug 8 (Grand Finale) Sat, Jul 25, 8pm: AYLI Manhattan Beach - Polliwog Park Newport Beach - Bonita Cnyn Park LLL - 8pm: Jun 18, 19, 20, 26, 1601 Manhattan Beach Blvd Laguna Niguel - Crown Valley Park Bonita Canyon & Mesa View Jul 2, 10, Aug 7 (Grand Finale) Fri, Jul 17, 7pm: LLL 29751 Crown Valley Pkwy Sat, Aug 1, 7pm: LLL Sat, Jul 18, 7pm: AYLI Sun, Jul 26, 7pm: LLL Sun, Aug 2, 7pm: AYLI Rancho Palos Verdes - Hesse Park 29301 Hawthorne Blvd Sun, Jul 5, 7pm: AYLI Malibu - Bluffs Park** 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy Sun, Jul 12, 7pm: LLL Rossmoor - Rush Park* * 3021 Blume Dr, Los Alamitos Wed, Jul 15, 7pm: AYLI Beverly Hills - Roxbury Park** 471 S Roxbury Dr Sun, Jul 19, 7pm: LLL Hermosa Beach - Valley Park Valley & Gould Wed, Jul 22, 7pm: LLL Thu, Jul 23, 7pm: AYLI Carson - Anderson Park* 701 E Carson St Wed, July 29, 7pm: AYLI Glendale - Glenoaks Park 2531 E Glenoaks Blvd Thu, Jul 30, 7pm: LLL EI Segundo - Recreation Park** 339 Sheldon St Wed, Aug 5, 7pm: AYLI Glendale - Pacific Park* 501 S Pacific Ave Thu, Aug 6, 7pm: AYLI * = NEW LOCATION ** = NEW CITY THIS YEAR ADDITIONAL OPTIONS: DECADENT DINING Celebrate in style with Decadent Dining for just $50 per person. Package includes: reserved festival seating, gourmet picnic, dessert and a commemorative program. Decadent Dining offered at only three performances: June 13, August 7 and 8. BIG FISH FAMILY MEMBERSHIP Donate and become a member of our Big Fish Family! Funds raised through private donations ensure Shakespeare by the Sea continues to present quality performances each summer. Every donation makes a difference. ❑ DECADENT DINING Sat, Jun 13: Opening Toast AYLI # of tix x $50 = Fri, Aug 7: Grand Finale LLL # of tix x $50 = Sat, Aug 8: Grand Finale AYLI # of tix _ x $50 = ❑ BIG FISH FAMILY MEMBERSHIP _$2500 Trigger Fish _$500 Sword Fish _$50 Flying Fish _$1000 Angel Fish _$100 Gold Fish _$25 Star Fish ❑ HAMLET II in Little Fish Theatre's Back Lot (check date) Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Fri 6/19 6/27 7/3 7/10 7/17 Sat 6/20 6/28 --------- 7/11 7/18 Sun _6/21 _6/29 _7/5 _7/12 _7/19 # of Individual Hamlet II Tix @ $25 = $ # of Whale & Ale Dinner/Theatre Tix @ $40 = $ ❑ AS YOU LIKE SHAKESPEARE BY THE SEA Film Screening Wed, Jul 8: Film Only # of tix x $10 = Wed, Jul 8: Film & Reception # of tix x $35 = TOTAL: $ Name Address City, State, Zip Phone Email Check Enclosed Amex Visa MC DISC 3 -digit sec. code on back Exp. AMEX 4 -digit code on front Return by Fax: by Mail: 310.507.0269 Shakespeare by the Sea 397 W 11 th St San Pedro, CA 90731 ! ;11111 IN i Note: While 24-hour counts were collected at the College Driveway, they are not considered comprehensive of all trips related to the College since they do not include traffic associated with college -related vehicles parked on adjacent streets such as Palos Verdes Drive East when counts were collected. Therefore, this data was not included in the analysis. MADE A PART OF THE fJECP'AD AT NCIL MEETING CSF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Note: While 24-hour counts were collected at the College Driveway, they are not considered comprehensive of all trips related to the College since they do not include traffic associated with college -related vehicles parked on adjacent streets such as Palos Verdes Drive East when counts were collected, Therefore, this data was not included in the analysis. NMI f I, I '! � '' CountLaitc Average Daily _JARTe _ School in S"sion? - Tuesday 1,1115/05 2 2152Yes Wednesd& 11/16/05 Thursday 11/17105 __L,475 0 Yes Yes ThLrsd!y 12/1/06 2,200 Yes Saturda 11/19/05 831 Yes Saturda 12/3/05 279 No Saturday 12/10/05 949 Yes ,_qnjft 11/20106 1,079 Yes I -- AD T counts do not include traffic a=aated with college -related vehicles parked on adjacent streets (off -campus), 2 = Marymount Cofte weekend classes are in session every other weekend, and were not in session the weekend of 1213105. MADE APART OFTH COD AT MCIL MEETING OF ^-® OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK 4nc� Attachment B Palos Verdes Drive East (PUDE) and Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS), are critical transportation routes within Rancho Palos Verdes. Due to a sensitive location near unstable San Ramon Canyon, there is a strong probability of a catastrophic roadway failure with the potential to take lives, destroy homes, cutoff transportation, and limit access to crucial facilities. ®i ® . The silting and erosion of San Ramon Canyon over the Past 35 years has accelerated at an alarming rate over the past decade. Geologists and engineers conclude that the instability translates into probable roadway failure. The Canyon's streambed is now only a mere 86' from one of two hairpin turns on PVDE. Erosion of the bank will cause complete roadway failure; reconstruction will be impossible. If PVDE is rendered useless, It cannot be reconstructed, severely altering transportation routes for For PVDS, Rvery storm event requires emergency response to keep the road open. In a recent very dry year, emergency response was still necessary Aerial Overview. Erosion conditions are eight times to remove silt and debris. if PVDS collapw4that debris flow WA accelerating; roadway failure Is probable endanger over 250 homes and SW senior residents located roughly 270 feet with reconstruction Impossible. below San Ramon Canyon. Homes wig be destroyed, residents will be at risk, and emergency operations will be severely compromised. VITAL TRANSPORTATION ROUTES and LIFE SAFETYOw. r . t .. « t .,:.. « regional fire safety personnel. In addition, PVDE and PVDSgovernment transportation networks. Project Supporters (partial list): ® Roderick D. Wright, CA State Senator ® Alan Lowenthal, CA State Senator • Bonnie Lowenthal, CA Assemblymember • Don Knabe, LA County Supervisor ® Janice Hahn, LA City Coundimember • Larry Clark, RPV Mayor • Steve Wolowicz, RPV Mayor Pro -Tem • Thomas D. Long, RPV Councilmember Palos Verdes Is one of only two access roads for a Federal Aviation Administration's communication facility; headquarters for air traffic control computer technology managing some of the most complex airspace in the country. Palm Verdes Drive Is a vital transportation link for local residents and contributes to the overall effident circulation for through traffic to the Coast Guard facilities at Point Vincente, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and Interstate 110. w Peter C. Gardiner, RPV CouncilmemberJ residents of Rory Pa Verdes a the entire population • Douglas W. Stern, RPV Coundimember of dw Paks Verdes Penhitsula depend an PVDE and PVfor essential transportation Roadwayfallures would comprombe Immediate accessfarfine, police and emergency personnel, greatly lacream commute times, destroy two vital transportation links to governmentfacilities, and sign deaease economic revenueby 11miting access to businesses, local attractions and arnenNes, Including resorts. The Palos Verdes Drives East and Palos Verdes Drive South Roadway Stabilization Project involves planning, engineering, environmental clearance and mitigation, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of significant drainage restoration work to stabilize Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive South. Total estimated cost of the project is $19.5 million. Rancho Palos Verdes 9 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. a Rancho Palos Verdes, California s 90275 a( 142V2 MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CAMPUS MODERNIZATION PLAN City Council Hearing: March 30, 2010 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CUP Condition No. 18: Expand the outer limits of the City Council's review period for each Project phase from six months to twelve months. • Twelve months would provide the City Council with greater flexibility in terms of scheduling the review while not precluding an early review. "No later than pier twelve (12) months after the completion of each of the three Construction Phases described herein..." Condition No. 60(a): Allow two full summer periods to complete Phase One. • The completion date for the Phase One improvements must incorporate at least two summer periods since this is the only time these construction activities can occur. This minor change would not affect the overall 8 -year phased build -out. "The planning entitlements, including grading and building permits, for all construction described under Phase One'shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than September 30th of the year that is two years from the date the decision becomes final. Condition No. 67. Proposed reduction in permitted maximum grading amounts. • Leave the original approved "estimates" based on 84,800 cubic yards of grading as -is. Condition No. 136 Proposed cap on outdoor events, including religious services. Leave as -is or increase the cap to allow flexibility. 136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment, with the exception of annual graduation ceremonies, shall be prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Such activities and other outdoor events should attempt to be located as far away from residential areas as possible. DE A PART OF 7g, g, Pa � AT COUNCIL MEETING OF OF/ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Marymount CUP revisions Page 2 of 3 136) The use of outdoor amplification equipment for outdoor events, „*4he shall be prohibited unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Prior to September 1st of each year, the College may request an annual Special Use Permit to conduct no more than 35 outdoor events that include amplified sound during the next 12 months (ending August 31. Such activities and other outdoor events should attempt to be located as far away from residential areas as possible. Conditions Nos. 140,142 and 145: Inaccurate description of degree programs. 140) The College's "Traditional Degree Programs" are the academic programs (Associates and Bachelors degrees) that offer classes primarily during the day on weekdays (Monday to Friday). The College's "Non -Traditional Degree Programs" are the academic programs (Associates, Bachelors and Masters degrees) that offer classes, including post -secondary academic classes, primarily during weekday evenings and on weekends (Saturday and Sunday), so as to generally avoid overlap with the class schedules of the Traditional Degree Programs. The Traditional and Non -Traditional Degree Programs are referred collectively as the "Degree Programs." 142) As used in this Conditional Use Permit, a "student" means either a "full-time student," which is a person enrolled in a Degree Program or a Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 12 hours of course work during the applicable Term (as defined below), or a "part-time student," which is a person enrolled in a Degree Program or Continuing Education Program on campus for at least 3 hours, but up to 11 hours, of course work during the applicable Term. Note: No changes needed because the "Degree Programs" are defined above. 145) The following enrollment limitations apply: A. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs on campus during the Fall, Winter, and Spring Terms is 793 students (full-time and part-time). Of these 793 students, a maximum of 250 students may be enrolled in a Bachelors of Arts degree program (13A PregFam). For the Summer Term, if other educational or recreational programs are concurrently offered during weekdays, the maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs must be proportionally reduced so that the combined enrollment in all such programs (e.g., Traditional Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs) does not exceed a total of 600 students (full-time and part-time) and participants. Marymount CUP revisions Page 3of3 New Condition: Reduce the College's financial obligation under TR -2 for the signalization of the Miraleste intersection to a fair share payment. SPECIAL 181) In recoanition that the Miraleste Drive/Palos Verdes Drive East intersection currently operates at a Level of Service (LOS) F and warrants signalization under existing conditions and is currently an identified improvement under the City's Capital Improvement Program, if the City has not installed such traffic signal prior to time required under TR -2 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, then the applicant must signalize the intersection and may obtain reimbursement from the City for such work less the applicant's proportionate share of the cost of the signalization based on the forecast proiect traffic utilizing this intersection in the Final EIR. Iri OR AND MADE A PART OF TRECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF g'OFFICE & THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK MARYMOUNT COLLEGE CJ Marymount College Requested Actions • Deny Appeal • Certify FOR w/enhanced findings. • Re -Approve Project w/o staff modifications. • Minor revisions to CUP. MMARY -MOUNT COLLEGE WAfSW PALOS VFApES, CALIFORNIA 19 MMAPYMOUNT COLLEGE WgW PAIRS VEOES, CAUFOWK SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT Fictions Split campus eliminates 2 minor unavoidable impacts Statement of Overriding Considerations has nothing to do with Library PV North site adequate in size Keeping athletic field "as is" "where is" is responsible solution. Continuous construction for 8 -years — Code only allow 1 year Need 410 more parking spaces (double) No need to do remedial grading Affordable housing required Staff Only parking next to San Ramon residences eliminated Modular buildings create view impacts Facts • No change to construction noise or cumulative traffic • SOC needed primarily for Library & parking • PV North Site too small • Relocation of athletic field environmentally superior • Intermittent construction for 36 months — Code 54 months/bldg (CUP less) • Parking adequate with 120 more spaces • Geologists rec. remedial grading • Exempt from affordable housing • Faculty only parking near San Ramon residences • One-story modulars have no aesthetic impact PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE Existing Buildings: 92,268 Sq. Ft. Demolition: 189022 Sq. Ft. Library Building: 26,710 Sq. Ft. Other Additions: 169891 Sq. Ft. Athletic Facility: 33,243 Sq. Ft. Total: 151,090 Sq. Ft. Net New Total: 585882 S q. Ft. M rMAFLYYMOU COLLEGE OMW K MAINTAIN PERSPECTIVE MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERpES, CALIFORNIA Library MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VWES, CALIFO"M 2 A? i5's'�w�i.}�`"i�i i 9 6 G'd�`��',r,"sk�ek&'�� k' C { v. CiY�'tw✓�*J.€,A. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERpES, CALIFORNIA Library MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VWES, CALIFO"M Athletic Facility MMAKYMOUNT COLLEGE k*" PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA PURPOSE OF EIR Identify ways to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.1) MMAR-YMOUNT COLLEGE rALOS VVWES, CALIFORNIA FEIR FINDINGS Project Traffic & Parking Fully Mitigated • Light and Glare Fully Mitigated • Operational Noise Fully Mitigated • Hydrology and Water Quality Fully Mitigated • Air Quality Impacts Fully Mitigated • Construction Traffic Fully Mitigated • Biological Resources Fully Mitigated • Geology and Soils Fully Mitigated • Public Services and Utilities Fully Mitigated • Aesthetics Fully Mitigated MMAIZYMOUNT COLLEGE WgW PALOS VEKPES. CAUFORNIA M FEIR FINDINGS Not Fully Mitigated - Short -Term Construction Noise - Cumulative Traffic at PVDE/PDVS Intersection MMARY -MOUNT COLLEGE tftftW rALOS VUMS, CALIFORNIA Split Campus Alternative Provides no substantial environmental advantage "We do not believe the SOC has anything to do with the library." - Appellant Temporary Construction poise -grading (for expanded parking & Library) -construction (Library, Faculty and Classroom Additions) [FEIR 5.5-17 and 18.] MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE NWW rALOS VWES, CALIFORNIA M Split Campus Alternative Provides no substantial environmental advantage Table 5.5.8 Summary of Esti ed Construction Noise MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PAIRS VWES, CALIFORNIA Split Campus Alternative Provides no substantial environmental advantage (b) Cumulative Traffic Impact 40,000+ SF Academic Facilities x 27.5 trips/TSF = 1100 trips [Appendix D, 3.3-8-9] -Impact results from only 5% of Project trips [FEIR 12-863] MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE kUW PAIRS VWES, CALIFORNIA M FEIR: Split Campus Alternative "Significant & unavoidable False. The temporary construction [temporary construction noise] noise impact is a function of the specific activity (grading) and can be remedied by shortening improvements (e.g... Library, construction time." Lecture Hall) and proximity of -Appellant sensitive receptors. [FEIR 5.5-17.] • FEIR: compression of phasing schedule would not mitigate construction noise because the underlying activities would be the same. [FEIR 12-869.1 MMARY -MOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VMES, CAUFORNIA FEIR: Split Campus Alternative ► Add a CEQA finding that split campus alternative would not substantially lessen the significant unavoidable impacts of Project as to (a) short-term construction noise and (b) cumulative traffic. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE WMW PAWS VMPES, CAUFORNIA E Statement of Overriding Considerations SOC needed for: 1. Short-term construction noise (Parking, Library & Academic Facility additions) 2. PV Drive East/South Intersection (cumulative traffic) Appellants: Claim to support Parking, Library, Academic Facility improvements. MMAKYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VEKPES, CAUFORNIA Library & Lecture Hall: Community Benefits )UNT COLLEGE VAN PALOS VWES, CAUFORNIA 10 Athletic Facility: Community Benefits MARYMOUNT COLLEGE WdW PALOS VEP PES, CAUFORNIA Split Campus Alternative Infeasible The alternative is not feasible. (a) The PV North site is outside the City's jurisdictional boundaries. (b) The PV North site is inadequate in size. MMAR-YMOUNT COLLEGE WW [ALAS VWES, CALIFORNIA 11 Split Campus Alternative Infeasible "PV North site is 15.7 acres." -Appellant "Combine with Rolling Hills Prep in constructing a mutually beneficial sports facility." -Appellant - False. -Site is 11.35 acres based on lease. -Less .31 acres for the road easement. -11.04 acres total. -2 acres geologic constraints. mMARYMOUNT COLLEGE WVW PALOS VUWES, CAUFOWIA 12 Split Campus Alternative ► Add a CEQA finding of infeasibility due to inadequate site size. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PAIOS VUWES, CALIFORNIA Split Campus Alternative The alternative fails to meet the College's basic project objective to upgrade its on - campus athletic, health and counseling facilities, which are a critical part of its academic program. MMAR MOUNT COLLEGE WMW PAWS VEKPES, CALIFORNIA 13 Split Campus Alternative Objective: On -Campus Physical Education and Student Life & Counseling/Health Facilities 15 PE Courses/Term 50 Student Life programs and events/Term Location of Counseling and Health Center 05"AaWa0 MMAKMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERDES, CALIFOMIA Split Campus Alternative ► Add a CEQA finding that Split Campus Alternative fails to meet most basic Project objectives. MMAIZYMOUNT COLLEGE MbW PAWS VERpES, CALIFORNIA 14 ATHLETIC FIELD -Appendix D finds infeasible due to impaired fire safety access. -Appendix D finds environmentally inferior due to new aesthetic and noise impacts. -Greater potential for soil erosion. •Inadequate size. -Netting and large retaining walls required to expand current size. Note: CCGME opposed the use of grasscrete with engineered drainage for the proposed parking lot in this area due to erosion concerns and is now supporting irrigated turf. mMARYMOUNT COLLEGE WjW PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 15 Original field Te.EEcoron Fo AT m• ;p'' r' layout - - preferred by College �.+`ter'•:: •,::;oGiT "•� .'Y. :';!14, :< r ;:.. t ;+; "e Fart a4,.•.�ti� $".t� :- +e.e •. ° I $MtUB54D M. \x, .V..:GA�;.•,•76D• '' LbM..rHirr::'fr''." I ` • :.A.��. / ` . 'J':'} p, TRS. r� i �,, • ' } IEMORARY FRGE FOR .Y � " • 15W TRS � IEVENIS. IEiitll6i ]O'IX6R '�L). 1 WITH TELE'1.NIN6P AT 9O' �� \ I I (IIII, / OG. PARTII�J ROIE� TE'FLAYW6 51FPAC2 OF TIE SOOOHE PEID Ei Dom' ED "' °A " "" " MAIZYMOUNT COLLEGE TiE FIBD OP AFFPDXIWAT6Y 3'-6' FET TALL A 6' BLK.K:IRON oftrevue au ee eWmvom w T!E W:LYC ecReel:a allow+. t PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNM 15 Alternative D-2 Less desirable to College since tennis courts are split — impacting instruction and competitive use. 16 aeai, ,. .. Snn Remw: tJ '1-rx�''.. � �—Y; �i. t � l I i �� \.t.� ice/. 8•�r� Ii , .ahw�map ,y I ' 1 1 '• t 4 Existing Pedestrian Circulation 16 Parking "Inadequate - more parking on our streets." - Appellant False. • Parking adequacy no longer considered under CEQA. • City CUP analysis historically based on observed demand. • 1990 Revision "C" — CUP required 50 additional spaces for new construction based on observed off street parking of 25-35 vehicles during peak hours. [Appendix C, 1/23/90 staff report] • 2001 KAKU Associates EIR parking study found observed peak demand of 0.57 vehicles per student. MMAR-YMOUNT i PAEOS VEWES, CAUFO: 17 Parking • 2005 RBF EIR parking study found identical peak demand of 0.57 vehicle/student. [Appendix D, 3.3-38.] • More conservative than ITE University Parking Rate of 0.30 vehicles/student. [Appendix D, 3.3-38.] • Peak Hour demand declines significantly after 3 pm. • Student use of athletic facilities and public use of lecture hall/library will continue to occur primarily in non -peak hours. Parking • More conservative than ITE University Parking Rate of 0.30 vehicles/student. [Appendix D, 3.3-38.] • Peak Hour demand declines significantly after 3 pm. • Student use of athletic facilities and public use of lecture hall/library will continue to occur primarily in non -peak hours. mMARYMOUNT COLLEG PALOS VERPES, CAUFOPNIA 18 Parking Demand ® Existing Parking ■ Utilized Parking ® New Parkin >•e... e•e•n a-�o•w n- �•ao. aa.n •-aa•� a•eo• e•>an >•eam a.ea• e.�a•• MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PAWS VERDES, CAUFORNIA Parking • Peak Hour demand declines significantly after 3 pm. • Student use of athletic facilities and public use of lecture hall/library will continue to occur primarily in non -peak hours. MMARYMOUNT COI PALOS VERDES, CAUFORNA 19 MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERPES, CALIFORNIA Marymount's Implementation of the FEIR's Parking Management Strategies Demonstrates that the Mitigation is Feasible The College has implemented a parking program consistent with proposed Mitigation Measure TR -5 and TR -6: — Premium Carpool Parking — Spaces reserved for carpool vehicles. — Parking Lot Traffic Director — Campus security directs vehicles to available parking during peak times (8 am to noon, Monday -Friday). — Deter Street -Parking — Campus security monitors street -parking and directs students to available parking spots on -campus. — Emphasize Shuttle Service — During orientation students were strongly encouraged to take advantage of the College's free shuttle service. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERPES, CALIFORNIA Implementation of Parking Management Strategies Results: - Significant reduction in off - campus parking -Off-street parking readily verifiable 20 RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Athletic Building Design: No visual character impacts to southern campus area. • FEIR Appendix A: the significant and unavoidable impact to visual character of the south facing slope associated with the Athletic Facility would no longer occur. MMAPYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERPES, CALIFORNIA Existing View from PV Drive East MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE VAWd PALOS VERpES, CALIFORNIA 21 Athletic Facility MMAPYMOUNT COLLEGE PAIRS VERDES, CAUFORW RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDiATIONS No visual character impacts to southern campus area. No identification of any properties allegedly affected. No view simulation referenced to support the alleged impact. The few nearby homes are hundreds of feet away and the view of the campus to the north is not the primary view. MARY -MOUNT COLLEGE WW PAIRS VWES, CAUFORW 22 View of PV Drive East — No primary views of homes looking up at campus affected. MMAKMOUNT COLLEGE WWW PALOS VFAPES, CALIFORNJIA RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS VISUAL CHARACTER • No evidence that 10 -foot reduction in footprint would be perceptible. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PAIRS VEKPES, CALIFORW 23 INT COLLEGE WLISW rALOS VEVES, CAUFORMIA MAIZYMOUNT COLLEGE Whoft PAWS VERpES, CALIFORW Im RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ATHLETIC BUILDING • Redesign will eliminate over 2600 square feet of area (office space, exercise room, snack bar). MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VEVES, CAUFOtN11A RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ATHLETIC BUILDING • College cannot move Athletic Building back further because of adjacent maintenance facility and delivery area. MMARY -MOUNT COLLEGE WAW PAWS VERpES, CALIFORNIA 25 RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ATHLETIC BUILDING • 10 acres of open space immediately below — far greater than virtually every other two or three-story residential or nonresidential structure approved by City. mMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VWES, CALIFORNIA 26 T COLLEGE PALOS MWES. CALIFORNIA 27 Conclusions: Athletic Building: (1) adds minimal amount of observable development from south; (2) is buffered by 10 acres. of open space; and (3) the landscape plan improves visual character. MMAIZMOUNT COLLEGE PAIRS VWES, CALIFORNIA College's architect recommends: (1) modifying the pitched roof to a flat roof over the northern portion of the structure (10 -foot height reduction) and (2) lower roof pitch by 4 -feet at southern elevation. View simulations confirm feasibility. MAIZYMOUNT COLLEGE PAL.OS VERPES. CALIFORNIA 28 No View Impacts to 3302 Narino mMARYMOUNT COLLEGE WWW TAWS VEWES, CALIFORNIA No View Impacts to 3302 Narino MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE WWW PAIOS VWES, CALIFORNIA 29 RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS — Mutual goal of no significant view impairment carried through to project construction by Condition No. 53 (certified silhouette & further review) MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VOWES, CALIFORNIA Eastern Parking Lot: Setback of 80 feet and 10,000 SF of open space more than adequate. 30 East Parking Lot Adjustments Redesign: — Creates an excessive buffer that fails to meet rough proportionality test and would result in an unlawful exaction. — Eliminates a significant area in the campus core and place it an undesirable area. — Places development closer to the south slope. — Impedes access to the rose garden. — Results in a less desirable circulation pattern. 31 Existing Driveway and Parking along San Ramon Drive Residences -Plan will add landscape setback that does not currently exist restriction MARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VWFS, CAUFORlV1A 32 Grading • Balance Cut and Fill • Will remove artificial ribbon of slope over 35% and remove/correct unstable soils. • Over 11 acres of the site undeveloped • FEIR and Geotechnical reviews find grading, as conditioned, can be done without impacts. Grading "Don't grade the south - facing slope — geologists determined it had in (sic) adequate soil stability." -Appellant MMAR_MOUNT COLLEGE PAIRS VERDES, CALIFORW • False. The FEIR found the artificial fill on the south slopes to be unstable and the Geologist recommended removal and recompaction. [FEIR 5.6-9 and 10, 5.6- 20.] MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PAiOS VERDES, CAIIFOR IM 33 Grading MMAR-YMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERPFS. CALIFORMA ME F- s.C•ry' � Il �� ~ ��:;;\`�� . � �:, Via•;. 8164 MMAPYMOUNT COLLEGE bkW PAIRS VWXS, CAIIFOWA Grading MMAR-YMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERPFS. CALIFORMA ME 35 F a X ,...0 i x6'4r ti tmpvmoueat'COLIEI Mnm L EmnlT b/l06'At6 36 �� 'ter. e' ,_� , ; s, l �� ..�-•' r, k,• \.:' �,~~y :.�k'':�'.{=»ax:3 ori, va':i. •�\ ' el ems:—:�,. .m,. � ', �' ;\'J;"„•,,i+',.'\\,',u' \ 36 MARY_ MOUNT COLLEGE WfttAft PALOS VMDES, CALIFORNIA Construction Process Phase 1: demolition, mass grading, parking lot reconfiguration, athletic field and pads for new buildings (3 months during summer) Phase 2: construction of Library and Athletic building Phase 3: smaller items - administration building, art studio Estimate cumulative activity: 36 months Time = Money Phase 1 demolition mass the to parkingg lot reconfiguration athletic Tieldhennis courts pads for new buildings` i nw�xuuRttaiva�s emcees w�irawa Vl ^..ar.:�r.. 37 Phase 2 AI CL - 74, \ i I, x.\ �N<�`��,�, � . ��w.m..� w / •�; -' •tel\ `, \ \ �1�\ ` Fine grade for new construction associated with this ph \ + \+ + -Construct library addition. •Remodel existing Classroom Building. •\ �\ •Construct Academic Building addition. .Construct Athletic Facility and pool. "" 1 \ a•^ .Construct Maintenance Building. •Construct Bookstore addition. + •Construct improvements site pedestrian adjacent to new constructs -Remove modulars as new facilities are constructed. ®W»-�••--••• ISO�� wre r nARrwOu+r GOLLE6E — MAIlfit�• • .•.ee�e. 'wuYw—R�vrnor''rxm°"'°w 6:r. Phase 3 AI CL - 74, \ i I, x.\ �N<�`��,�, � . ��w.m..� w / •�; -' •tel\ `, \ \ �1�\ ` -Fine grade for new construction associated with phase, -Construct sitepetlestrian improvements adjacent to new construction. -Construct Fine Arts Studio Addition. si�w..x - rause m rcrixs e -v � •-••••_•-•• ® ®s��ee+reee MARYMOIMT G011E6E waua ru�.ereors. c+e.rort w 38 CUP Revisions Condition No. 18: Expand the outer limits of the City Council's review period for each Project phase from six months to twelve months. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PAWS VWES, CAUFOWIA CUP Revisions Condition No. 60(a): Allow two full summer periods to complete Phase 1. The planning entitlements, including grading and building permits, for all construction described under Phase One shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be completed no later than September 30th of the year that is two years from the date the decision becomes final." MMAR MOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VE&DES, CALIFOWIA 39 CUP Revisions New Condition: Reduce the College's financial obligation under TR -2 for the signalization of the Miraleste intersection to a fair share payment. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PAWS VERPES, CAUFORNIA CUP Revisions Condition No. 67: Retain permitted maximum grading amounts at 84,000 CY (102,000 studied). MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VFRnES, CALIFORNIA O. CUP Revisions Condition No. 136: Eliminate new proposed cap on outdoor events, including religious services (24), or increase number to (35) to avoid processing delays. MMARYMOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERpES, CALIFORNIA CUP Revisions Conditions Nos. 140,142 and 145: Correct description of existing and proposed degree programs. MMARY -MOUNT COLLEGE PALOS VERPES, CALIFORNIA 41 NLARYMOUNT COLLEGE 42 Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:46 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: CCC/ME Appeal From: Ted Mueller [mailto:TMueller@cimarrongroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:31 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: CCC/ME Appeal To Whom It May Concern: We are twelve year residents in EI Prado Estates and strongly recommend that the City Council reject the appeal by Marymount College. The idea that a private institution if it is not satisfied with the ruling by Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council that it can appeal to the masses through a threatened vote to override a previous decision is both outrageous and extremely arrogant. To allow such a vote to happen would embolden other developers to request city wide referendums if they did not like any rulings stipulated by any RPV city agency. If this is to be allowed, then why weren't the citizens of RPV allowed to vote on the decision of whether or not to expand St. John Fisher facilities, or the decision of where to locate low income housing, or whether a new CVS would be built. As stated earlier, Marymount College is a private institution thus why should it be granted special privileges when Marymount is not providing services to entire city instead it is catering to a very narrow group of people that may or may not live in RPV. If we are going to re-examine the previous decisions regarding Marymount College, then Marymount's conditional use permit ("CUP") should then be up for review. Maybe, now is the time for the CUP to be terminated. We recommend that the City Council reject the appeal of Marymount College and approve the Alternative Plan of a Living & Academic Campus. The City of RPV does not need any additional accidents caused by Marymount students unable to negotiate the curve at PV Drive East and Ganado. The City Council must insure that Marymount College remains compatible to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The neighborhood was present before Marymount moved to its current location. Therefore, we strongly recommend the City Council reject the EIR. Sincerely, Ted and Michelle Mueller 3/30/2010 Ara M From: Long, Thomas D. [tlong @ nossaman.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:16 PM To: jlkarp Cc: clehr@rpv.com; Ara M; Carol W. Lynch Subject: RE: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC Lois, Thank you. Also I am asking staff to bring hard copies of what you have provided as attachments. Some comments: (1) The library contributes to the unmitigated problems at two intersections --it is not just a noise issue. Thus in the absence of an SOC the project must be denied in its . entirety. Staff has indicated this to me. Thus I still have the question whether, given its opposition to the SOC, CCC/ME would agree to any portion of the project. (2) I now understand that the alternative CCC/ME proposes requires demolition to make the facilities fit. (3) Thank you for the information on coverage. I don't have similar data on the coverage of residential lots in the area that I can compare. But the percentage without dorms (which are not at issue in this application) seems compatible. It's too bad we don't have floor area ratio rules like some other cities to provide certainty to this issue. (4) Thank you for clarifying CCC/ME's concerns about grading. I am not sure they are relevant at this stage of land use entitlements but I will wait to see if there is further clarification as to how (if at all) they relate to the entitlements at issue. There are always actions after land use entitlements are approved to address safety concerns. I am not sure that now is the time to address technical details of a grading permit. I am not aware that we have any comments by a geologist before us which is what we would need to address those issues. I am not prepared to designate your entire neighborhood as too fragile for development without solid evidence on the point before me. The possible consequences for your property values and the possible risks to the city of acting in such a precipitous manner dictate against doing so. Your fears and concerns about grading, without more, are not the evidence I need to condemn your area as undevelopable. (5) I understand your preference for more intensive activity on site over a shorter period of time rather than less intensive activity over a longer period of time. That is very much an issue of personal preference of course. You say this is "assuming there is construction" which I assume again reflects CCC/ME's preference that all entitlements be denied completely and with prejudice. Is my assumption incorrect? (6) As to height I was interested in which of the PC's findings in granting the height CCC/ME feels were wrong. I am not simply accepting staff's recommendations on all issues. (7) Does CCC/ME think that Marymount's property is in a residential zone? My understanding is that the zoning is institutional and that the requirements of residential zoning do not apply just as they would not apply in a commercial zone. It makes no sense to say that an institutional development has to be compatible with residential properties. Indeed we have found many proposed houses to be incompatible. Thus by definition the facilities proposed here could never be compatible and the project must be denied without further consideration. This makes no sense and is plainly not the way the neighborhood compatibility rules were intended to apply. (8) I am still interested in whether or not there have been complaints as to operations during late hours and if not why a review of conditions under the CUP would not be enough to address any concerns in the future. Why should we find a solution now for an issue that has not been a problem? The issue isn't just when the last class ends but how long the students can study at the library. Our own district libraries are often open beyond 6 PM so that strikes me as a very unreasonable closing time. (9) Additional parking for St. John Fischer was justified (if indeed it was appropriate) 1 by the fact of the added number of seats. In any event, I would never want to repeat the city's treatment of St. John Fischer in the treatment of any new application that may come before us. That's not a good example of good planning. (10) Specifically what protections in the 1975 CUP are being lost that you would like toy, see restored and why? (11) On the modulars, while you say the situation would be remedied by a shorter period of time, that is not the way your concern was stated. Your concern was that the EIR had to be done all over again. Simply shortening the time would not make up for a real deficiency in the EIR. So again, my question is what are the environmental impacts that need to be studied more in connection with the modulars? (12) The fact that plans have changed over time does not at all persuade me that the proposal is "unstable" under CEQA. Something more is needed if you intend to rely on this argument. (13) On affordable housing I think everyone but CCC/ME recognizes that there is a clear exemption in Subsection B(3) of the code section you cited for developments that do not create 10 low wage jobs. You have provided no evidence that 10 low wage jobs will be created and have not contested the college's evidence to the contrary and so this exemption clearly applies. If you have such evidence you should provide it now. (14) Where in RPV's codes does it say that grading is "excessive" when the city geologist says it is not necessary but is acceptable? (15) A finding that a prior condition on the property was compatible with the general plan and the city's codes does not mean that a new and different condition is not. That just doesn't follow. But yes, do provide the specific language if you would like and I will look at it. Thank you for the clarifications and responses. Tom -----Original Message ----- From: jlkarp [mailto:jlkarp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:24 PM To: Long, Thomas D. Subject: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC ----- Original Message ----- > Subject: Fw: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:10:55 -0700 > LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC/ME AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN > FAVOR OF MARYMOUNTFYI > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Long, Thomas D. > To: jlkarp@cox.net > Cc: clehr@rpv.com ; joelr@rpv.com ; Ara M > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:56 AM > Subject: RE: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC > Further questions on the below in bold. I invite both CCC/ME and > staff comment. Again I would like this e-mail chain included in late > correspondence. > -----Original Message ----- 2 > From: "jlkarp" > Sent 3/30/2010 7:44:53 AM > To: cc@rpv.com > Subject: LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC.doc > LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC/ME AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN > FAVOR OF MARYMOUNT > CCC/ME: > • October 14, 2000 proactively set meeting with Marymount Board > of Trustees to explore ways the neighborhood could work with the > college > • We assured the college that remodeling of the present campus > with the addition of a library would not be contested TDL: I asked a > question about the library which has still not been answered. > CCC/ME's opposition to the SOC if sustained appears to mean that the > library could not be built. If built the library would generate > enough traffic to create the significant and unmitigated traffic > congestion at two intersections (or at least it would do so in > combination with one or more of the other buildings.) Thus if one > opposes the SOC, by definition one opposes a finding key to building > the library. Does CCC/ME oppose the library or not? LK Comment: The suggested linkage between support for the Library that precludes opposition to the SOC is not understood. The only theoretical connection is construction noise associated with the Library but there is far greater construction noise of different and more invasive character than building the Library. Mitigation is possible for Construction noise by condensing the time frame to 18-24 months as it was previously 198-24 months, including residence halls construction at that time. That noise can be mitigated not just for the Library, that is a stretch. Although above a 16' Code Height, does not, in our view, pose a significant unavoidable environmental impact that would require a SOC. The connection to Construction noise is absurd and specious. It, therefore does not, in our view, require a related Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC). Your view is that it does. That is the distinction. We support the Library as now approved and do not agree that to support the Library automatically involves an unmitigatable and significant environmental impact. You are of the opposite opinion. > • In 2002 we entered into the EIR the Alternative Plan of the > Living Campus & the Academic Campus because we believed it was the win-win > for the college and the residents TDL: Can you show me a schematic that > shows how the facilities you want built on the San Pedro campus would > fit into the land there? LK Comment: The College has provided the City with a Property description of their parcel PT -H which is larger than the property previously acknowledged but that portion is included therein. It is 15.7 acres in size, not 11+ acres. We have previously provided a copy of that property in the LA City Planning document forwarded to this City. The "layout" would place a joint -use Athletic Building on existing flat land astride the Rolling Hills Prep/Marymount property line depicted in LA Lot PT -H at the location of two completed fields (Football & Soccer) and large parking lot. This is the site of tennis courts now that sits between the two properties. Please see attached documents provided to the City by the College and related aerial views with an overlay of this parcel. The existing housing units to the southwest would be torn down and new residence facilities constructed there at a fraction of the cost compared with the $30 Million Dr. Brophy claimed for the RPV Residence Halls. Once these were finished, long -needed demolition of the current outdated townhouses at the existing site could commence replaced by an assortment of new facilities of any and all types placed in their stead. > PLANNING COMMISSION COMPROMISED THE NEIGHBORS BY: > • Approving 92,000 sq. ft college to grow to 210,000 sq. ft on > only 13 build able acres (high density) TDL: How does this density > compare to residential density in the neighborhood in terms of floor > area ratio (square footage of footprint and/or living space compared > to lot > size.) Is Marymount more dense or less dense than the surrounding area? LK Comment: According to Staff, the build able area of the site is 13, not 26 acres. That is 552,500 sq. ft. The Project envisions a total Sq. Ft. area"of 151,090 sq. ft. without dorms (27%) and 210,254 sq ft. with dorms (38%). > • Approving the site as suitable in size and shape even though > construction near steep topography (opposite to the City Council 1990 > resolution) TDL: Is the construction near an extreme slope? If so, > isn't it true that CCC/ME opposes the grading necessary to remedy the > extreme slope condition which (in turn) was caused in the first place > by poor grading earlier? LK Comment: No, it is not true that CCC.ME opposes the grading necessary per the Recommendations of Associated Soils Engineering of May 10, 2005. That grading is required because of the less than required slope stability and involves a 1,125 wide swath across the entire slope below the existing campus. This is not opposed because the basic site is fragile and needs such stabilization measures for our own protection. Grading to implement this soil buttress shear key stabilization is not an option! It is required (as so stated by ASE May 19, 2009) whether or not Residence Halls are to be built, just slightly configured differently East of the Chapel What we strongly object to are two points regarding this mandatory grading of the shear key. 1.) It can only be displayed by a Geotechnical Map, Plates I and II with Cross Sections that illustrate the extent of such grading at these points. This information had not been provided to the Planning Commission until May 26, 2009. Although the shear key stabilization was accurately described in the DEIR Geology Section 5.6, it did not include the Geotechnical Map. There is confusion because the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans of this EIR are five in number, only two of which are Geotechnical, the other three are architectural and do not reveal the shear key and its extent. That is five such site, plans in 44 months that this EIR has been underway since August 2005. The baseline Geotechnical Map of July 19, 2005 (ASE stamped) was not shown or included in any of the PC/City Council documents of this appeal. The most recent (##5) Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan of January 201 0 is an architectural version with no cross sections and merely references the May 10 2005 ASE recommendations, that must be complied with. All subsequent Phase Diagrams and Exhibits have not shown or called out this extensive grading feature. We are very concerned that the amount of such grading has not been revealed and represents upwards of 130,000 - 150,000 Cubic Yards beyond the Earthwork quantities that have been disclosed. The College has yet to comply with the City's requirement of September 18, 2009 to provide validated grading quantities. Dr. Brophy, in his October 6, 2009 letter to the City stated that all such issues raided had been provided. That has still not been received and the February 16, 2010 Staff report noted that such grading information would be supplied by the College at the Appeal. So far that has not happened. Why? > • Approving 8 -years of construction TDL: Would > CCC/ME prefer 3 years of construction in 3 years to 3 years of > construction over 8 years? LK Comment: If construction is going to happen, it is preferable to complete this project expeditiously, However, the College had previously planned for an 18-24 month completion time (overlapping/parallel construction elements) when this project was much larger and included dorms. At the June Hearings in 2009, Dr. Brophy claimed the College needed 8 years to raise funds. Now they claim to have all the funds. So why not go back to the original promise of 18-24 months when the project is now much smaller without dorms. They can go back to 18-24 moths! > • Approving CUP for buildings up to 45' high (16' > by Code) TDL: are any of the findings necessary for this approval > improper? If, so which ones and why? LK Comment: Incomplete is a more appropriate term than "improper". Staff does not support 4 the height and location of the Athletic Building and recommends it be lowered and moved off the slope by 10' in each aspect thus 1110 & 10". > • Accepting the bulk & mass of the new buildings as compatible > with surrounding homes TDL: Does CCC/ME think neighborhood > compatibility requirements apply to an institutional zone near to a residential zone? > If so, do they also apply to commercial zones? If so, how can any > commercial or institutional development be allowed in the city? No > such development could ever be compatible with a residential use. (Of > course perhaps a college could be if it had dorms.) LK Comment. No comment regarding commercial zone as it does not apply. In a residential zone the bulk and mass is obviously a factor and the existing bulk and mass is a reasonable starting point. The increase in bulk and mass is what is objected to because we already have a starting point. A further point is to the extent such increase in bulk and mass is actually seen or visible and that is quite substantial here, as noted. > • Extending hours of operation to 11 PM TDL: Isn't this > allowed by the current CUP? Aren't they currently open until 11 PM? > What complaints have there been? Why wouldn't a review of conditions > be sufficient to address any problems that might emerge? LK Comment: The hours of operation had not been documented or subjected to formal CUP conditions. We have shown that such late hours are not required for other major Colleges and Universities. They are inappropriate and should not now be institutionalized and incorporated. Past practice is also not well documented because if you go back to the prior 1990 and 1975 Resolutions/CUP's and planning hearings, the last class closed out before 61100 PM and only one such class was offered in the Fall Semester of 2009. > • Removing mandatory traffic & parking mitigation measures (now > all voluntary) TDL: What has been rendered voluntary? 120 spaces are > added, correct? LK Comment: Mandatory Mitigation Measures TR -5, TR -6 & TR -7 were removed in the Final. The College substituted a voluntary program instead. The College's voluntary program to date (Since summer 2009) - has been an abject failure with only 518 students still parking on the streets. Dr. Brophy testified that this program would eliminate such on street student parking it has not today and the actual Spring enrollment is now below 500. > • Accepting parking that was less than Code TDL: See my other > questions --as yet not fully answered. LK Comment> We do not accept that the Parking Code applies only to new additions. That would be a poor Code, and if true, it must be revised. It is noted that the City Council authorized and required additional parking above Code requirements for St. John Fisher, so to (effectively) contend that Code does not require more parking above existing and insufficient levels, is functionally wrong and unsustainable, in practice. > • Allowing applicant to reduce street parking rather than take > all parking off the City streets as promised to the neighbors TDL: > The only way to completely assure off street parking is to implement a > parking permit program. CCC/ME members have commented that on street parking > continues to occur even when Marymount has empty spaces in its lot. Does > CCC?ME want permit parking? LK Comment> That is a wrong premise. On Street parking can be controlled by other means as used near the Palos Verdes High School. This is by use of signeage that does not allow peak period parking on the street. permit Parking is not the sole or desired solution. > • Reducing street side set backs TDL : Is it a > reduction or is it allowing them to keep what they have? LK Comment: The current setback in some places is only 21. The College requested to be allowed 10' as a compromise but that is not for all spaces because there are greater setbacks now than 21, and all new parking along PVDE would otherwise be subject to the 25' setback standard. So it is a mix, not a grand fathered allowance. > • Removing the San Ramon Covenants TDL: Please L■ > explain what this is. A true "covenant" is a private property > restriction that the city has no power to modify or remove. LK Comment. You are correct, strictly speaking. The term "covenant" here refers (loosely) to the CUP Conditions in the 1975 Resolution, of which the majority protected San Ramon Residents. > • Accepting 14,000 Sq .Ft of modular buildings, after EIR comment > period closed TDL: Did CCC/ME think the college would cease operation > during construction once buildings were torn down? If so, was that > thought based on anything the college said? If so, what? Is there a > copy of something showing the college was going to shut down rather > than have temporary facilities? Specifically what additional > environmental impacts does CCC/ME complain about as to the modulars? > If the EIR comment period closed does CCC/ME contend that it has been > deprived of an opportunity to provide substantive comments? If so, > what would those substantive comments have been and can the support for them be provided now? LK Comment: No. The college has other options as well and did not even think their plan through until October 2006 when Dr. Brophy realized, after meeting with us, that the College could not function when certain facilities were dismantled and demolished. That is their problem, not ours. The point here is twofold; First, the placement location is disputed, and second the duration 8 years is unreasonable. That would be remedied with an 18-24 month project time frame. > • Removing the Affordable Housing TDL: Dorms would > be the best way to meet an affordable housing requirement. Should we > require Marymount to build dorms? More seriously, does CCC/ME contest > the college's representation that it is not creating 10 low wage jobs > and therefore is exempt from this requirement? LK Comment: Our review of your question to Staff on January 31, 2006 regarding applicability of this Low Cost housing requirement reveals that it was then based upon sq ft. of new space constructed. We contend that it has two elements, one of which is sq ft. of new space in 10,000 sq ft increments. You contend otherwise that it is uniquely a requirement when low wage jobs are created. > • Acting as Lead Agency & not stabilizing the project (per CEQA) > which lead to constant changes TDL: Please identify each change that > means that the project was "not stabilized" and please explain how the > change came about, whether CCC/ME supports it or opposes it, and why. LK Comment: It would take more time than available at this point to provide "each stage" documentation. However, when you understand that in 44 months of this current EIR processing you have had 5 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans, that says a lot about an unstable baseline. > • Approving excessive grading TDL: Why is the grading > "excessive?" Is there any professional engineer who says it is? Is > there any engineer who says that the grading poses any real risk to > stability in the area? If so, please provide me all details and a > report (with an engineer's stamp). LK Comment: The "excessive" as opposed to remedial grading involves the cosmetic grading near the Rose Garden. The City Geologist has testified that this is not necessary for stabilization of that area but is acceptable otherwise. That is the definition of excessive grading by RPV Code., > • Violating the General Plan & Municipal Code with excessive > variances & CUP TDL: Can CCC/ME tell me what specific sections of the > General Plan and Municipal Code have been violated and specifically > what variances do so and how? LK Comment: The spirit of the previous CUP CC Appeal was that the site was suitable in size and shape for the use intended because there was no construction on or near steep topography and the project complied with Development Standards for height and setbacks. While that is a close paraphrase, we can provide the actual language. It is in Section 2 of the 1990 Resolution. This current Revised Project virtually destroys that previous concept, piece by piece. Death by a thousand cuts, if you will. This is truly incremental ism at work against the General Plan purposes. 6 I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1850 of my spam emails to date. yet the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message 7 LI aRks... RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 30, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz (two sets); Answers to questions posed by Mayor Pro Tem Long; Emails from Donald M. Davis; Jim Gordon; Dr. Michael S. Brophy; Mayor Pro Tem Long; Lois Karp; Robert and Marilee Smith; Terri Glidden; Barbara Ferraro; Doris and Fernando Penalosa; Minnie L. Smith and John D. Smith and Daniel Bernstein and R. Susan Bernstein; Bob Kollar; Email exchange with exhibits submitted to Mayor Pro Tem Long from CCC/ME (Lois Karp); Letters from: Donald M. Davis; Ronald and Patricia Barrett Respectfully submitted, Carla Morreale ** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page were submitted through Monday, March 29, 2010**. W:WGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20100330 additions revisions to agenda.doc RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: March 29, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting 3-30-10 Marymount expansion appeal - addendum QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Joel and Ara, Here are some questions from the appeal booklet from CCC/ME, Inc. and the letter from Burke, Williams. In advance — thanks, Steve Mayor Wolowicz, Staff's responses are provided below in blue italics. Ara CCC/ME, Inc. appeal booklet 1. Parking, page 6 (a) Educational Uses — Is it correct to base the number of spaces on number of students and number of seats? According to the Section 17.50.020 of the Development Code, the following parking requirement applies to Colleges and Universities, "I space for every 2 full-time regularly enrolled students plus 1 space for every 5 student seats plus 1 space for every 2 employees/faculty. rr The reason why the Code accounts for enrolled students and student seats is to account for ancillary uses that are typically used by students and found on a college or university campus, such as libraries, gymnasiums, student unions, etc. (b) Are the number of required parking spaces in this table correct and if so why hasn't the City required more parking spaces? According to the strict application of the parking criteria stated above, Appendix D to the Final EIR (see table 3.3-37 on page 3.3-37) estimates that a total of 640 parking spaces is required consisting of 397 parking spaces for the 793 enrolled students, 112 parking spaces for the 222 employees / faculty, and 131 parking spaces for the 653 student seats. Page 1 of 5 C:\WINNT\Profiles\telt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 20STAFF REPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ BATCH 2 - 10 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion addendum.doc 03/30/10 8:06 AM V However, the analysis then proceeds to reach the conclusion that based on project specific data and considerations, 463 parking spaces would adequately serve the parking demand, with incorporation of certain mitigation. 2. Grading. Haven't these assertions been answered by Staff in the staff report on page 2-13 and on 2-14 (regarding Jim Gordon's memos)? Yes. Staff is relying on the earth movement quantities shown on the revised Preliminary Grading Plan, wet -stamped by a registered engineer and submitted to the City on March 5, 2090 as being the most accurate and recent proposal for the requested project. Mr. Gordon has expressed concerns with the quantity of earth movement shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan and the extent of work shown on the project geotechnical reports. It should be pointed out that the quantity of earth movement has been reduced from the Planning Commission's approval (84,800 cubic yards to 79,155 cubic yards as shown on the March 5, 2010 Preliminary Grading Plan). As stated in the March 30th City Council Staff Report, during the plan check process in Building Safety, the City's Building Official, City's Engineer, and the City's Geologist, will be reviewing the grading plans against the geotechnical report. if the quantities of earth movement do not match the geotechnical reports and the quantities approved by the City Council, in that additional earth movement is shown, the College will have to go back to the City Council to amend its conditions of approval at a duly noticed public hearing. This may result in a delay in the issuance of the rough grading permit by several months due to noticing and scheduling requirements. 3. Affordable housing. Where in the City's findings have we established the affordable housing allocation and how was it computed? Staff suggests looking at Section 11 of PC Resolution No. 2009-28, at page 31 (which can be found in the Binders provided to the Council in August 2009), which explains the Planning Commission thinking that the project, without the residence halls, generates less than 10 new jobs, and thus is exempt from the Code's affordable housing requirements. Moreover, the college has maintained that they would not be adding more than 10 jobs of low or very low income, which was put in writing on April 24, 2009 by the College's legal counsel, Don Davis 4. Overall. It appears that staff has addressed all of the assertion made in the appeal booklet. Were there any items not covered in the staff report or EIR? Page 2 of 5 C:\WINNT\Profiles\tent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 20STAFF REPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ BATCH 2 -10 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion addendum.doc 03/30/10 8:06 AM No. The points of the appeal are addressed in detail in the August 18, 2009 City Council Staff Report. Letter date 3-26-10 from Burke et al 5. Section III Responses to Staff Recommendations. Has Staff been able to write responses to each assertion by the Burke law firm? No. Due to time constraints (the letter was received via email today, March 29, 2010), Staff will not be able to provide written responses. However, Staff will be prepared to answer any questions the Council may ask related to Mr. Davis' letter at the March 30th meeting. Staff would like to point out that some of the points raised in Section 111 of the attached letter were provided to the Council, as late correspondence, on August 17, 2009. It is Staff's opinion, that the proposed modifications to the Athletic Building and the East Parking will not jeopardize the functionality of the project as described by the College, but would rather further minimize potential impacts with respect to views and the visual character of the athletic facility and the east parking lot. 6. Section IV Responses to Staff Proposed CUP Revisions. Has Staff been able to write responses to each assertion by the Burke law firm? Staff has not been able to prepare written responses. However, Staff provides the following: Condition No. 67 (grading) — Staff is not "proposing a mandatory reduction of approximately 6, 000 cubic yards of grading" as asserted by the Mr. Davis. Rather, Staff has updated the earth work quantities listed in the conditions of approval based on the most recent set of Preliminary Grading Plans prepared and wet -stamped by a licensed engineer and submitted to the City on March 5, 2010. As stated in the March 30th City Council Staff Report and accurately cited in Mr. Davis' letter, typically in the plan check stage the preliminary grading plans are updated to reflect precise grades. However, the quantity of earth movement does not increase otherwise a revision to the grading plan would have to be processed. For example, the Council had to consider a revision to the grading for the Terranea project prior to issuance of a grading permit. Condition No. 136 — As stated in the September 12, 2009 City Council Staff Report, it has come to Staff's attention that over the past several years, the number of requested outdoor events with amplified sound has varied between 15 and 26 events, and at times, the initial request from the Page 3 of 5 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 20STAFF REPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ BATCH 2 - 10 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion addendum.doc 03/30/10 8:06 AM College may have exceeded 30 events within an academic year. Staff is concerned that the manner in which the existing and Commission approved conditions for the Revised Project are written, there is no upper limit to the number of outdoor events with amplified sound the College may request. Additionally, with the reconfiguration of the campus, such as relocated parking lots and athletic fields, it is important to note that the outdoor events, which have historically occurred at Chapel Circle, Cecilia Quad, and Castle Field, will occur at new locations that may have different impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Council consider regulating, through the Conditional Use Permit, the number and location of outdoor events. Staffs recommended amendment to this condition is not intended to prevent the College from conducting outdoor events including religious services, but rather a method for controlling the number of outdoor events that may adversely impact the neighboring properties within an academic year. Staff is recommending that no more than 24 outdoor events with amplified sound be permitted within year (September 1St through August 31St) with the approval of a Special Use Permit. With this condition in place, the College knows that there is a limit of 24 outdoor events with amplified sound and can plan its yearly events accordingly, including conducting outdoor religious services, which by no means is the City prohibiting. A revision to the CUP will only be required if the College decides that it would like more than 24 events in a year and is not able to replace one event for another event (not to exceed 24) through a revision to its Special Use Permit. Conditions 140, 142, and 145 can be revised to correctly reflect the academic programs offered by the College. 7. Section V Request for Adoption of College Proposed Revisions to the Conditions of Approval. Has Staff been able to write responses to each request by the Burke law firm? Condition No. 18 as written requires a six month review after the completion of each construction phase. The College believes that six months may be too soon and is suggesting the time be 12 months. Staff believes that the condition as proposed is adequate and consistent with other projects approved by the City. Moreover, if it is determined that additional time is needed to evaluate the project, the Condition is written so that the City Council can require additional reviews, such as 12 months later. Condition No. 60a — the College is requesting that the time duration for constructing Phase One occur over a period that involves two summers. As written in the conditions, Phase One is to be completed within two Page 4 of 5 C:\WINNT\Profiles\tent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 20STAFF REPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ BATCH 2 - 10 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion addendum.doc 03/30/10 8:06 AM years from the date the final decision is made. In other words, if the Council approves the project at its April 6th meeting with the adoption of the project resolutions, the two-year clock would start ticking the following day (April 7th). The College's request is a Council policy decision that is line with the appellant's request to reduce the time duration to construct the project. Staff would like to point out that the environmental analysis evaluated project construction over a period of 8 years and extending construction beyond 8 years may require additional review (albeit the College is not requesting to exceed 8 years of construction). New Condition regarding the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of PVDE/Miraleste will require further review. Staff will be prepared to answer questions at the meeting. Page 5of5 C:\WINNT\Profiles\tent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 20STAFF REPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ BATCH 2 - 10 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion addendum.doc 03/30/10 8:06 AM RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian FROM: Steve Wolowicz CC: Carolyn Lehr DATE: March 28, 2010 SUBJECT: cc meeting 3-30-10 item #2 Marymount expansion appeal QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Joel and Ara, Please help with the following questions. Thanks, Steve Mayor Wolowicz, Staff's responses to the questions you ask are provided below in blue italics. Ara Staff Report 3-30-10 1. Pages 2-5, 2-9 and 2-16. Maximum enrollment for the BA Program. The phrase of "maximum 250" students appears in various places in the report. Is this an actual condition or merely what was used as an assumption in the analysis? (This appears to be answered in condition #145A on page 2- 49 indicating it was not, but now will be a limiting requirement). In light of the College's request in September 2009 to add a Bachelor of Arts degree program to its Traditional Degree program and the conclusion of the environmental analysis for this request, Condition No. 145 has been updated to include a maximum enrollment of 250 students for the BA degree program. It should be pointed out that the enrollment of 250 students for the BA degree program was used as the baseline for the environmental analysis and is now recommended to be a condition, as follows:: The following enrollment limitations apply: A. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs on campus during the Fall, Winter, and Spring Terms is 793 students (full-time and part-time). Of these 793 students, a maximum of 250 students shall be enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts Page 1 of 7 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ - cc meeting 2010 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion (2).doc 03/30/10 6:11 AM degree program (BA Program). For the Summer Term, if other educational or recreational programs are concurrently offered during weekdays, the maximum total permitted enrollment in Traditional Degree Programs must be proportionally reduced so that the combined enrollment in all such programs (e.g., Traditional Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs) does not exceed a total of 600 students (full-time and part-time) and participants. B. The maximum total permitted enrollment in Non -Traditional Degree Programs on campus during any Term is 150 students. C. The maximum total permitted enrollment in any combination of Traditional Degree Programs and Summer Educational Programs offered concurrently during summer weekdays (June to August) is 600 students and participants. 2. Would the traffic analysis change if the maximum amount of students were in the BA Programs (that is 50% of 793)? Yes. According to the traffic study in Final EIR Appendix D, the Institute of Traffic Engineers forecast a higher trip generation to the university category than the junior college category. This is reflected in the updated traffic study for the BA degree program which identifies increased trips with a maximum of 250 students in the BA degree program. 3. Regarding athletic field alternative No. D-2 were there any actual tests using experienced players kicking soccer balls towards goals to determine the height of nets needed to prevent balls going into traffic on PUDE? No. The recommended height (20 -feet) of the retractable net was based on the height of the existing net used at the existing field to prevent balls from entering the neighbor's rear yard on Vista del Mar. 4. Give the likelihood that intercollegiate lacrosse will be played on the same athletic field have tests been made for potential errant balls going into traffic? No tests were conducted to evaluate the likelihood of errant balls going into traffic. However, as noted in the previous response, the height of the retractable net is intended to match the height of the existing net. 5. Given the likelihood that the athletic fields will be used for recreational purposes on weekends, what assurances will there be that the nets will be used or that staff will be present to prevent potential problems? Page 2 of 7 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Loral Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ - cc meeting 2010 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion (2).doc 03/30/10 8:11 AM According to Condition No. 175, recreational activities requiring the use of the retractable net shall be prohibited on Sundays and the Federal holidays listed in the RPVMC, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained. Moreover, it will be the College's responsibility to ensure this condition is being adhered to by supervising the use of the athletic field during and after school hours, including the weekends. 6. Page 2-10 regarding the impact of the BA Program in traffic "... in terms of cumulative impacts ... at the PVDS/PVDE intersection would not be reduced to a less than significant level because the College would only be required to contribute its fair share to the intersection improvements." "... the improvements .... Will therefore result in a significant and unavoidable traffic impact as identified in the project EIR. The council will have to consider adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration..." (a) Are there no improvements to that intersection to improve the situation? The project EIR proposes, as a mitigation measure, a design modification to the intersection of PVDS/PVDE that consists of a two- stage gap for southbound left -turning vehicles, and a raised median refuge area for vehicles turning left from PVDE to cross westbound PVDS. This design modification was accepted by the City's traffic engineer. However, the construction of this improvement is not funded at this time and because the impact is triggered based on cumulative project impacts, the College is only responsible for its fair share contribution. (b) What is a Statement of Overriding Consideration and what is the consequence of not adopting such a statement? If a project EIR concludes that an impact is significant and avoidable, in other words mitigation measures cannot reduce the impact to a less than significant level, CEQA Section 15093 requires the decision makers to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits or a proposed project against the unavoidable impacts. If it is found that the proposed project outweighs the impacts, the Statement of Overriding Consideration shall be used as substantial evidence in the record as to why the project impacts are deemed acceptable. For this project, if a Statement of Overriding Consideration is not adopted for the significant and unavoidable impacts of traffic at PVDE/PVDS and short-term construction noise impacts, the project in its entirety would have to be denied. Page 3 of 7 C:\WINNT\Profiles\tent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ - cc meeting 2010 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion (2).doc 03/30/10 8:11 AM 7. Page 2-11 Athletic field alternatives. This statement does not appear correct "... the council directed Staff to prepare an alternative that would enlarge the existing field to the dimensions for the athletic field proposed by the College." Shouldn't this have read "... directed staff to present an alternative solution (or alternative analysis)...? Yes. It is Staffs understanding from the September 12, 2009 meeting, that based on the Commission approved athletic field's close proximity to PVDE and the potential for errant balls entering the roadway, that the Council directed Staff to present an alternative solution with the field remaining in its current location but enlarged to resemble the field dimensions proposed by the College. As such, Staff prepared Athletic Field Alternative D-1. 8. Alternative D-1 and the fire lane. (a) If the existing field is the size that the College had previously proposed and if the field is now in compliance then why cannot the field remain where it is? Based on the proposed project site plan, the existing field is partially within the area that is proposed by the College to be improved with a new fire access lane and pedestrian walkway. According to the fire department, the fire lane is necessary because the project proposes to remove the existing parking lot adjacent to the southern slope that can currently be used for emergency vehicle access. (b) It is difficult to read the small detail on the Alternative D-2 design map of detail in the parking lot (in place of the former athletic field) to distinguish the fire access lane. Why cannot the existing athletic field be positioned in such a manner to create the fire lane access (cannot there be grading at the southern most portion of the field)? As noted in the March 30th City Council Staff Report, if the Council wishes for the athletic field to remain in the general location of the existing field, the field will have to be reconfigured by shifting it to the south. This will require additional grading and the construction of a retaining wall or manufactured slopes. Conditions of approval Construction Phasing 9. Total of eight years seems too long. It can be understood that the school may prefer this length of time for purposes of raising funds and or creating conflict with school operations. However this appears excessive in terms of subjecting the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by: Page 4 of 7 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ -cc meeting 2010 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion (2).doc 03/30/10 8:11 AM (1) Page 2-15 Unavoidable impact — "...noise impacts associated with project consulting." Staff would like to point out that in terms of short-term construction noise impacts, a significant and unavoidable impact will occur regardless of the duration of construction. (2) Page 2-24, General Construction conditions section (21) construction "hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday." Questions (a) Is it physically possible and reasonable to achieve the entire construction in three years? Staff believes it is feasible to construct the entire project within three years. As an example, Terranea was constructed in less than two years. However, Staff would like to point out that Terranea was constructed on essentially an unoccupied property, while the College would like to continue operating during construction. In other words, to construct the project in less than three years may likely cause disruption to the operation of the College or its partial closure (at least at the RPV campus). (b) Can the hours be practically curtailed to not include weekends? That is an option the Council may wish to consider and require as part of the conditions of approval. However, the proposed conditions prohibit construction on Sundays and federal holidays. Alternatively, the Council may wish to further limit the hours of construction on Saturdays, such as 10am to 4pm. Operational 10. Page 2-46, hours of operation. Are library and "community -type" events allowed to currently go until 11:00 p.m.? 11. What are the hours of gym operations for local high schools? 12. Page 2-47, item #136 use of outdoor amplification. What are the qualifications for outdoor events for the local high schools and other venues located in such close proximity to residential neighbors? At this time in the evening, Staff is unable to answer these questions, but will provide a follow-up response either before the meeting or at the meeting. Parking 13. Understanding that on -street parking can be controlled by the City. Given the comments that the College would also prefer no on -street student Page 5of7 C:\WINNT\Profiles\tent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ - cc meeting 2010 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion (2).doc 03/30/10 8:11 AM parking, is it now practical to curtail all on -street parking (other than by local residents)? As reported in the August 98th Staff Report, the Project EIR suggests that the City Council consider, as a separate track item to the proposed Project, establishing on -street parking restrictions in the immediate area of the College to prevent the College's overflow parking from impacting neighboring City streets. This can be achieved by either red -curbing, posting restricted times, or implementing a permit parking program. The Traffic Safety Commission, at its January 5, 2009 meeting, recommended that the City Council direct the Traffic Safety Commission to explore studying parking restrictions within the immediate area of the College (see Appeal Binder Tab No. 29). The Planning Commission did not have a formal recommendation on this issue. If the City Council agrees with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation, the matter will be pursued by the City's Public Works Department on a completely different and separate track item to the Project. Appendix D — Section 8.0 Errata comparison Draft to Final 14. Page 8-2, ref. to page 2-14. Removal of preschool. Does this mean that the College is permanently not reopening the preschool? This means that under the current request, Conditional Use Permit No. 9 Revision "E," the College is not requesting to construct and operate a preschool. However, this does not prevent the College from submitting a future Conditional Use Permit to consider constructing and operating a preschool. In the event such a request is submitted, in addition to processing a revision to the existing Conditional Use Permit, environmental review will be required pursuant to CEQA. 15. Page 8-4, ref. to page 3.2-8, and page 8-5 ref. to page 3.2-11 AES -5 regarding retractable net. The effectiveness of this retractable net depends on complete compliance by students, visitors and all others to not play soccer whenever the net is not up. That seems it will be hard to enforce on week -ends, times between classes and any other free time. Questions: (a) This appears it may be practical in situations when access to a field is physically prevented; however, isn't the athletic field open at any time? According to the project plans, the athletic field is not fenced from physically entering the field. However, the field is located on private property and the College, as stated in Condition No. 135, is required to provide 24-hour on -campus security. Although this condition does not specifically cite the athletic field, the Council may wish to add text to Page 6 of 7 C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ - cc meeting 2010 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion (2).doc 03/30/10 8:11 AM this condition to make certain that the athletic field and the requirements of the retractable net are being enforced by the College administration and security. (b) Could the net be raised by any visitor in order to maintain compliance with the safety standard? The College would be responsible for identifying the individuals in charge of raising and lowering the retractable net when the field is being used for recreational activities involving field balls, including by visitors. Page 7 of 7 C:\WINN-RProfiles\tent\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\STAFF RESPONSES TO MAYOR WOLOWICZ - cc meeting 2010 03-30 #2 appeal marymount expansion (2).doc 03/30/10 8:11 AM From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:32 PM To: 'Tom Long'; tlong@nossaman.com Cc: joelr@rpv.com; CLynch@rwglaw.com; carlam@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com; DSnow@rwglaw.com; terit@rpv.com Subject: RE: Questions on Marymount #2 Tom, Because a Conditional Use Permit is being considered, the City Council (Planning Commission) has the ability to look at parking for the entire campus. Moreover, since the request is a revision to an existing conditional use permit, the City has the ability to review issues beyond the proposed project, in this case parking for the overall campus. Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Ara, Thank you --very helpful. As to parking, why is parking analyzed as though the whole site is being developed anew (that seems to be the way you are doing it) when the code calls for the requirement to be defined only by additions and few employees and no students are being added? What meaning does the third sentence of the parking code have if each project is to be analyzed as though it is being built anew? Thanks. Tom From: Tom Long[mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:20 PM To: aram@rpv.com; tlong@nossaman.com Cc: joelr@rpv.com; CLynch@rwglaw.com; carlam@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com; DSnow@rwglaw.com; terit@rpv.com Subject: Re: Questions on Marymount #2 Mayor Pro Tem Long, Staff's responses to your inquiries are provided below in blue italics. This message will be included in the late correspondence package provided to the Council at tomorrow night's meeting. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Thanks, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. / 3/30/2010 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. One additional question. I would like the responses to these copied to me and to, staff as well (but not to other councilmembers directly) and would also like them included in late correspondence. I may have more questions later. (4) Library and SOC. The primary reason a statement of overriding considerations ("SOC") is sought seems to be for the construction of the library. At a minimum it appears the library cannot be built without an SOC. The appellants indicate they are in favor of the library but they oppose the SOC. Am I understanding the need for the SOC and appellant's position regarding the same correctly? Is the SOC also necessary to the construction of other items and if so which ones? I seek a response from the appellants, the College and staff on this question. The EiR concludes that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts only in the areas of short-term construction noise and cumulative traffic impacts at the intersection of PVDE and PVDS. In Staff's view, neither of these conclusions is a direct result of the inclusion of the library, but both are instead based on the analysis of the entirety of the project as now proposed with the removal of the dormitories. Unless further environmental analysis was concluded to determine what specific pieces of the project could be constructed without triggering either of the unmitigable impacts, the City will not know if simply removing the library would eliminate these two impacts. Similarly, the City would not know if removing all other parts of the project and just constructing the Library might avoid the impacts. So, Staff does not believe the record as it presently exists provides evidence to support that the SOC is needed "primarily" because of construction of the library. At this point the SOC is required if the project is approved substantially as proposed, and if something substantially lesser is approved, the City could assess whether an SOC would still be required. It should also be noted that short-term construction noise would occur from any construction on the site, even with a scaled back project. From: Long, Thomas D. Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:39 PM To: 'jlkarp@cox.net'; 'ddavis@bwslaw.com' Cc: 'joelr@rpv.com'; 'Carol Lynch'; 'clehr@rpv.com' Subject: FW: Questions on Marymount Importance: High To the College and the Appellants: I invite you to respond to my questions to the staff below. I prefer responses in writing and before the hearing if possible. I apologize for the short notice but we only 3/30/2010 C;Z a �- /a-.. recently received our packets and my work schedule this week did not permit me to review the materials and formulate questions earlier. Please copy staff on your responses so they may be included in late correspondence for all other councilmembers. Please do not directly copy other councilmembers. (Other than that limitation, though, feel free to share this with whomever you please.) I may submit additional questions. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes The Appellants cite several sections of the RPV Municipal Code about which I have questions. Please include these questions and staffs answers in late correspondence. Please also copy representatives of the appellants and the college and ask for their responses. (1) Parking. Appellants cite 17.50.020 and claim that RPV's code requires a total of 873 parking spaces. {See Appeal Tab 1.) But appellants seem to add together requirements that do not appear to me to be cumulative. It seems that only the requirement for colleges and universities would apply. Further, the third sentence of the section reads: "For additions to existing developments, the increased parking requirement shall be based only on the addition." It does not seem that the appellants took this limitation of the code section into account. How does staff respond to the parking calculation provided by appellants? It seems to me that since no new enrollment is being added and only a small number of employees, that far less than 120 additional parking spaces would be required because there is not enough of an "addition" to justify such an increase. According to the Final E1R Appendix D, page 3.3-37provides a calculation of the parking requirements per City Code for the proposed project, and estimates that 397 parking spaces are needed for the 793 students, 112 parking spaces are needed for the 222 employees /faculty, and 131 parking spaces are needed for the 653 student seats for a total parking requirement of 640 spaces. The analysis then proceeds to reach the conclusion that based on project specific data and considerations, the proposed 463 parking spaces would adequately serve the parking demand, with incorporation of certain mitigation measures. The Appendix D calculation follows the requirements in Section 17.50.020 for Colleges and universities, which provides: "1 space for every 2 full-time regularly enrolled students plus 1 space for every 5 student seats plus 1 space for every 2 employees/faculty" (2) Validity of Entitlements for More than One Year. Appellants claim the PC approval and staff recommendation are improper under section 17.86.070 as providing entitlements valid for more than one year. Appellants seem to be stating that RPV's municipal code 3/30/2010 3 0�- %6;t- requires construction to be completed within one year of the issuance of entitlements. {See Appeal Tab 3.) But the code section appears to me to only require "commencement upon the permitted use" which is defined in ways in Subsection (A) that make it clear to me that the construction need not be completed within one year. What is staffs view? Staff is in agreement with the assessment that it is commencement of the use, as defined in the code. Staff would add that for conditional use permits, the 1 year period in which to commence is a default position, but that Section 17.60.070 provides, in relevant part that "The time limit shall be a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development. If no date is specified by the Planning Commission or City Council, a conditional use permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final action on the permit or approval." It is important to note that the Code allows the Commission and Council to set longer periods than 1 year for "commencement" of entitlements. (3) Affordable Housing Requirement. Appellants claim that Marymount has an affordable housing requirement citing section 17.11.140. {See Appeal Tab 7.} Appellants point out that for non- residential developments adding more than 10,000 square feet there is such a requirement. But it seems to me that Section B(3) provides an exemption if fewer than 10 jobs will be low or very low income and that therefore there is no affordable housing requirement. (Unless there will be 10 more such jobs than there are now --will there be?) What is staff's view? Staff suggests looking at Section 11 of PC Resolution No. 2009-28, at page 31 (which can be found in the Binders provided to the Council in August 2009), which explains the Planning Commission thinking that the project, without the residence halls, generates less than 10 new jobs, and thus is exempt from the Code's affordable housing requirements. Moreover, the college has maintained that they would not be adding more than 10 jobs of low or very low income, which was put in writing on April 24, 2009 by the College's legal counsel, Don Davis. I may have more questions later, but this is all for now. By the way it would be helpful to some of us if the municipal code were in a larger font on the city website. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 3/30/2010 4. 0 �- / C�_ Teri Takaoka From: Tom Long [tomlong@palosverdes.coml Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:20 PM To: aram@rpv.com; tlong@nossaman.com Cc: joelr@rpv.com; CLynch@rwglaw.com; carlam@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com; DSnow@rwglaw.com; terit@rpv.com Subject: Re: Questions on Marymount #2 Ara, Thank you --very helpful. As to parking, why is parking analyzed as though the whole site is being developed anew (that seems to be the way you are doing it) when the code calls for the requirement to be defined only by additions and few employees and no students are being added? What meaning does the third sentence of the parking code have if each project is to be analyzed as though it is being built anew? Thanks. Tom -----Original Message ----- From: "Ara M" Sent 3/29/2010 5:21:22 PM To: "'Long, Tom"' Cc: "'Joel Rojas"' , "'Ara M"' , "'Carol W. Lynch"' , carlam@rpv.com, "'Carolyn Lehr"' , "'David Snow"' , "'Teri Takaoka"' Subject: RE: Questions on Marymount #2 Mayor Pro Tem Long, Staff's responses to your inquiries are provided below in blue italics. This message will be included in the late correspondence package provided to the Council at tomorrow night's meeting. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Thanks, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www,P-alosrdes pmn rp_v.. Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation, One additional question. I would like the responses to these copied to me and to staff as well (but not to other councilmembers directly) and would also like them included in late correspondence. I may have more questions later. 3/30/2010 5 of- / d-- (4) Library and SOC. The primary reason a statement of overriding considerations ("SOC") is sought seems to be for the construction of the Library. At a minimum it appears the library cannot be built without an SOC. The appellants indicate they are in favor of the library but they oppose the SOC. Am I understanding the need for the SOC and appellant's position regarding the same correctly? Is the SOC also necessary to the construction of other items and if so which ones? I seek a response from the appellants, the College and staff on this question. The EIR concludes that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts only in the areas of short-term construction noise and cumulative traffic impacts at the intersection of PVDE and PVDS. In Staff's view, neither of these conclusions is a direct result of the inclusion of the library, but both are instead based on the analysis of the entirety of the project as now proposed with the removal of the dormitories. Unless further environmental analysis was concluded to determine what specific pieces of the project could be constructed without triggering either of the unmitigable impacts, the City will not know if simply removing the library would eliminate these two impacts. Similarly, the City would not know if removing all other parts of the project and just constructing the Library might avoid the impacts. So, Staff does not believe the record as it presently exists provides evidence to support that the SOC is needed "primarily" because of construction of the library. At this point the SOC is required if the project is approved substantially as proposed, and if something substantially lesser is approved, the City could assess whether an SOC would still be required. It should also be noted that short-term construction noise would occur from any construction on the site, even with a scaled back project. From: Long, Thomas D. Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:39 PM To: 'jlkarp@cox.net'; 'ddavis@bwslaw.com' Cc: 'joelr@rpv.com'; 'Carol Lynch'; 'clehr@rpv.com' Subject: FW: Questions on Marymount Importance: High To the College and the Appellants: I invite you to respond to my questions to the staff below. I prefer responses in writing and before the hearing if possible. I apologize for the short notice but we only recently received our packets and my work schedule this week did not permit me to review the materials and formulate questions earlier. Please copy staff on your responses so they may be included in late correspondence for all other councilmembers. Please do not directly copy other councilmembers. (Other than that limitation, though, feel free to share this with whomever you please.) I may submit additional questions. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes The Appellants cite several sections of the RPV Municipal Code about which I have questions. Please include these questions and staff's answers in late correspondence. Please also copy representatives of the appellants and the college and ask for their responses. 3/30/2010 � 6 ¢ / C9— (1) Parking. Appellants cite 17.50.020 and claim that RPV's code requires a total of 873 parking spaces. {See Appeal Tab 1.} But appellants seem to add together requirements that do not appear to me to be cumulative. It seems that only the requirement for colleges and universities would apply. Further, the third sentence of the section reads: "For additions to existing developments, the increased parking requirement shall be based only on the addition." It does not seem that the appellants took this limitation of the code section into account. How does staff respond to the parking calculation provided by appellants? It seems to me that since no new enrollment is being added and only a small number of employees, that far less than 120 additional parking spaces would be required because there is not enough of an "addition" to justify such an increase. According to the Final EIR Appendix D, page 3.3-37provides a calculation of the parking requirements per City Code for the proposed project, and estimates that 397 parking spaces are needed for the 793 students, 112 parking spaces are needed for the 222 employees /faculty, and 131 parking spaces are needed for the 653 student seats for a total parking requirement of 640 spaces. The analysis then proceeds to reach the conclusion that based on project specific data and considerations, the proposed 463 parking spaces would adequately serve the parking demand, with incorporation of certain mitigation measures. The Appendix D calculation follows the requirements in Section 17.50.020 for Colleges and universities, which provides: "1 space for every 2 full-time regularly enrolled students plus 1 space for every 5 student seats plus 1 space for every 2 employees/faculty" (2) Validity of Entitlements for More than One Year. Appellants claim the PC approval and staff recommendation are improper under section 17.86.070 as providing entitlements valid for more than one year. Appellants seem to be stating that RPV's municipal code requires construction to be completed within one year of the issuance of entitlements. {See Appeal Tab 3.1 But the code section appears to me to only require "commencement upon the permitted use" which is defined in ways in Subsection (A) that make it clear to me that the construction need not be completed within one year. What is staff's view? Staff is in agreement with the assessment that it is commencement of the use, as defined in the code. Staff would add that for conditional use permits, the 1 year period in which to commence is a default position, but that Section 17.60.070 provides, in relevant part that `The time limit shall be a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development. If no date is specified by the Planning Commission or City Council, a conditional use permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final action on the permit or approval. " It is important to note that the Code allows the Commission and Council to set longer periods than 1 year for "commencement' 3/30/2010 7 of )C -;L- of entitlements. (3) Affordable Housing Requirement. Appellants claim that Marymount has an affordable housing requirement citing section 17.11.140. {See Appeal Tab 7.} Appellants point out that for non- residential developments adding more than 10,000 square feet there is such a requirement. But it seems to me that Section B(3) provides an exemption if fewer than 10 jobs will be low or very low income and that therefore there is no affordable housing requirement. (Unless there will be 10 more such jobs than there are now --will there be?) What is staff's view? Staff suggests looking at Section 11 of PC Resolution No. 2009-28, at page 31 (which can be found in the Binders provided to the Council in August 2009), which explains the Planning Commission thinking that the project, without the residence halls, generates less than 10 new jobs, and thus is exempt from the Code's affordable housing requirements. Moreover, the college has maintained that they would not be adding more than 10 jobs of low or very low income, which was put in writing on April 24, 2009 by the College's legal counsel, Don Davis. I may have more questions later, but this is all for now. By the way it would be helpful to some of us if the municipal code were in a larger font on the city website. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 3/30/2010 R' OF /,:,?--- Teri Takaoka From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 5:21 PM To: 'Long, Tom' Cc: 'Joel Rojas'; 'Ara M'; 'Carol W. Lynch'; carlam@rpv.com; 'Carolyn Lehr'; 'David Snow; 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: RE: Questions on Marymount #2 Mayor Pro Tem Long, Staff's responses to your inquiries are provided below in blue italics. This message will be included in the late correspondence package provided to the Council at tomorrow night's meeting. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Thanks, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rPv.com WWW.- alosverdes. com/rnv ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. One additional question. I would like the responses to these copied to me and to staff as well (but not to other councilmembers directly) and would also like them included in late correspondence. I may have more questions later. (4) Library and SOC. The primary reason a statement of overriding considerations ("SOC") is sought seems to be for the construction of the library. At a minimum it appears the library cannot be built without an SOC. The appellants indicate they are in favor of the library but they oppose the SOC. Am I understanding the need for the SOC and appellant's position regarding the same correctly? Is the SOC also necessary to the construction of other items and if so which ones? I seek a response from the appellants, the College and staff on this question. 3/30/2010 The EIR concludes that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts only in the areas of short-term construction noise and cumulative traffic impacts at the intersection of PVDE and PVDS. In Staff's view, neither of these conclusions is a direct result of the inclusion of the library, but both are instead based on the analysis of the entirety of the project as now proposed with the removal of the dormitories. Unless further environmental analysis was concluded to determine what specific pieces of the project could be constructed without triggering either of the unmitigable impacts, the City will not know if simply removing the library would eliminate these two impacts. Similarly, the City would not know if removing all other parts of the project and just constructing the Library might avoid the impacts. So, Staff does not believe the record as it presently exists provides evidence to support that the SOC is needed "primarily" because of construction of the library. At this point the SOC is required if the project is approved substantially as proposed, and if something substantially lesser is approved, the City could assess whether an SOC would still be required. It should also be noted that short-term construction noise would occur from any construction on the site, even with a scaled back project. From: Long, Thomas D. Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:39 PM To: Jlkarp@cox.net'; 'ddavis@bwslaw.com' Cc: 'joelr@rpv.com'; 'Carol Lynch'; 'ciehr@rpv.com' Subject: FW: Questions on Marymount Importance: High To the College and the Appellants: I invite you to respond to my questions to the staff below. I prefer responses in writing and before the hearing if possible. I apologize for the short notice but we only recently received our packets and my work schedule this week did not permit me to review the materials and formulate questions earlier. Please copy staff on your responses so they may be included in late correspondence for all other councilmembers. Please do not directly copy other councilmembers. (Other than that limitation, though, feel free to share this with whomever you please.) I may submit additional questions. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes The Appellants cite several sections of the RPV Municipal Code about which I have questions. Please include these questions and staff's answers in late correspondence. Please also copy representatives of the appellants and the college and ask for their responses. (1) Parking. Appellants cite 17.50.020 and claim that RPV's code requires a total of 873 parking spaces. {See Appeal Tab 1.} But appellants seem to add together requirements that do not appear to me to be cumulative. It seems that only the requirement for colleges and universities would apply. Further, the third sentence of the section reads: "For additions to existing developments, the increased parking requirement shall be based only on the addition." It does not seem that the appellants took this limitation of the code section into account. How does staff respond to the parking calculation provided 3/30/2010 / (7 6(' 1 v1- by appellants? It seems to me that since no new enrollment is being added and only a small number of employees, that far less than 120 additional parking spaces would be required because there is not enough of an "addition" to justify such an increase. According to the Final EIR Appendix D, page 3.3-37provides a calculation of the parking requirements per City Code for the proposed project, and estimates that 397 parking spaces are needed for the 793 students, 112 parking spaces are needed for the 222 employees /faculty, and 131 parking spaces are needed for the 653 student seats for a total parking requirement of 640 spaces. The analysis then proceeds to reach the conclusion that based on project specific data and considerations, the proposed 463 parking spaces would adequately serve the parking demand, with incorporation of certain mitigation measures. The Appendix D calculation follows the requirements in Section 17.50.020 for Colleges and universities, which provides: "1 space for every 2 full-time regularly enrolled students plus 1 space for every 5 student seats plus 1 space for every 2 employees/faculty" (2) Validity of Entitlements for More than One Year. Appellants claim the PC approval and staff recommendation are improper under section 17.86.070 as providing entitlements valid for more than one year. Appellants seem to be stating that RPV's municipal code requires construction to be completed within one year of the issuance of entitlements. {See Appeal Tab 3.} But the code section appears to me to only require "commencement upon the permitted use" which is defined in ways in Subsection (A) that make it clear to me that the construction need not be completed within one year. What is staff's view? Staff is in agreement with the assessment that it is commencement of the use, as defined in the code. Staff would add that for conditional use permits, the 1 year period in which to commence is a default position, but that Section 17.60.070 provides, in relevant part that "The time limit shall be a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development. If no date is specified by the Planning Commission or City Council, a conditional use permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final action on the permit or approval. " It is important to note that the Code allows the Commission and Council to set longer periods than 1 year for "commencement" of entitlements. (3) Affordable Housing Requirement. Appellants claim that Marymount has an affordable housing requirement citing section 17.11.140. {See Appeal Tab 7.} Appellants point out that for non- residential developments adding more than 10,000 square feet there is such a requirement. But it seems to me that Section B(3) provides an exemption if fewer than 10 jobs will be low or very low income and that therefore there is no affordable housing requirement. (Unless 3/30/2010 %1 Df- /a, there will be 10 more such jobs than there are now --will there be?) What is staff's view? Staff suggests looking at Section 11 of PC Resolution No. 2009-28, at page 31 (which can be found in the Binders provided to the Council in August 2009), which explains the Planning Commission thinking that the project, without the residence halls, generates less than 10 new jobs, and thus is exempt from the Code's affordable housing requirements. Moreover, the college has maintained that they would not be adding more than 10 jobs of low or very low income, which was put in writing on April 24, 2009 by the College's legal counsel, Don Davis. may have more questions later, but this is all for now. By the way it would be helpful to some of us if the municipal code were in a larger font on the city website. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 3/30/2010 /CA OT /�;' From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:45 AM To: carlam@rpv.com; 'Teri Takaoka' Cc: 'Carol W. Lynch'; 'Joel Rojas' Subject: FW: Marymount Responses to Questions from Councilmember Long Late correspondence. Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram(a)rav com www.palosverdes.com/rpv Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Davis, Donald M. [mailto:DDavis@bwslaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 11:42 PM To: Long, Thomas D. Cc: Joel Rojas; Ara M; Carol W. Lynch Subject: Marymount Responses to Questions from Councilmember Long Dear Councilmember Long: Based on your e-mail earlier today, it appears that staff may have answered these questions although the College was not copied on the response (and you seem to have already reached the correct conclusions) . As such, I am providing our responses with some additional background information. (1) Parking. Appellants cite 17.50.020 and claim that RPV's code requires a total of 873 parking spaces. {See Appeal Tab 1.} But appellants seem to add together requirements that do not appear to me to be cumulative. It seems that only the requirement for colleges and universities would apply. Further, the third sentence of the section reads: "For additions to existing developments, the increased parking requirement shall be based only on the addition." It does not seem that the appellants took this limitation of the code section into account. How does staff respond to the parking calculation provided by appellants? It seems to me that since no new enrollment is being added and only a small number of employees, that far less than 120 additional parking spaces would be required because there is not 3/30/2010 / '0 f V, C;Z enough of an "addition" to justify such an increase. The City has historically analyzed and conditioned parking for Marymount improvements under its CUP based on observed demand rather than the Code. Contrary to statements made by the Appellant, in 1990, when the City approved Revision "C" to the College's CUP, the City required 50 additional parking spaces for the new construction (Student Union addition) based on observed off street parking of 25-35 vehicles during peak hours. (FEIR Appendix C, 1/23/90 staff report). At the outset of this Project, Marymount was directed to prepare a parking analysis. The first, prepared in 2001 by KAKU Associates, found the observed peak hour parking demand to be 0.57 vehicles per student. The City then retained RBF, which, interestingly, made the same finding of 0.57 vehicles/student in its 2005 study, which is part of FEIR. (See Appendix D, 3.3-38.) Among other things, these identical results confirm that campus operations have been generally uniform during the past decade. Moreover, the City's use of the actual observed demand approach is much more conservative than the ITE University Parking Rate of 0.30 vehicles/student. (Appendix D, 3.3-38.) Peak Hour demand on campus declines significantly after 3 pm. Student use of athletic facilities and public use of the lecture hall/library will continue to occur primarily during non - peak hours. While RBF states its analysis in a different way, in essence, the College, based on staff direction, proposed 463 spaces using the observed demand formula recommended by the City's consultant: 793 students x.057 vehicles/student = 452 spaces. (2) Validity of Entitlements for More than One Year. Appellants claim the PC approval and staff recommendation are improper under section 17.86.070 as providing entitlements valid for more than one year. Appellants seem to be stating that RPV's municipal code requires construction to be completed within one year of the issuance of entitlements. {See Appeal Tab 3.1 But the code section appears to me to only require "commencement upon the permitted use" which is defined in ways in Subsection (A) that make it clear to me that the construction need not be completed within one year. What is staffs view? Your interpretation is correct, but we believe the controlling provision is § 17.60.070 because all construction is being approved pursuant to a CUP. This section specifically allows for the proposed phasing and time periods: "Before approving any conditional use permit, the [city council] shall establish a time limit within which the applicant shall commence upon the permitted use, as that phrase is defined in Section 17.86.070 (Enforcement) of this title. The time limit shall be a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development. " NOTE: The City's building code automatically allows 30 months from the issuance of a building permit to complete a building over 10,000 square feet with a 24 -month extension (54 months total). (§15.18.050.) As such, depending on the actual start date of some work, the proposed construction time limits in the CUP are actually more restrictive than the City's Building Code. 3/30/2010 f (3) Affordable Housing Requirement. Appellants claim that Marymount has an affordable housing requirement citing section 17.11.140. {See Appeal Tab 7.) Appellants point out that for non-residential developments adding more than 10,000 square feet there is such a requirement. But it seems to me that Section B(3) provides an exemption if fewer than 10 jobs will be low or very low income and that therefore there is no affordable housing requirement. (Unless there will be 10 more such jobs than there are now --will there be?) What is staffs view? Your interpretation is correct. The City's affordable housing chapter exempts nonresidential projects greater than 10,000 SF where "less than ten employment opportunities for persons of low or very low income would be created." (§17.11.140.B.3) As indicated in the College's letter of April 24, 2009 (which the Appellant curiously includes but ignores), the Project before the City Council would only generate the need for 5 or 6 new low-income maintenance and security positions. (4) Library and SOC. The primary reason a statement of overriding considerations ("SOC") is sought seems to be for the construction of the library. At a minimum it appears the library cannot be built without an SOC. The appellants indicate they are in favor of the library but they oppose the SOC. Am I understanding the need for the SOC and appellant's position regarding the same correctly? Is the SOC also necessary to the construction of other items and if so which ones? I seek a response from the appellants, the college and staff on this question. CCC/ME's response is as shocking as itis revealing: "We do not believe the SOC has anything to do with the library. We feel the SOC has been given for the public use of the athletics facilities and there is no where for the public to park except on the public streets. " The opposite is true. The FOR attributes the short-term construction noise (first unmitigated impact) primarily to the grading and construction activities associated with the reconfigured parking areas as well as the Library and academic facility additions because they are closest to the nearest homes (San Ramon). (FEIR 5.5-17 and 5-18.) The FOR found no construction impact related to the Athletic Building because it is centrally located and thus farther from these homes. The second unmitigated impact is cumulative traffic at the RPVDE/RPVDS intersection. In the FOR traffic analysis, all new construction was assigned 27.5 trips/day for each 1000 SF. According to the analysis, the Library (26,000 SF) and the other academic facility additions (14,000 SF) potentially generate over 1100 trips/day (40 x 27.5 = 1100). The City's traffic consultant advised the College that only 5% of project trips accounted for the impact at the RPVDE/RPVDS intersection - and 1100 trips is much more than 5%. (FEIR 12-869) In sum, a SOC would still be required even if only these academic improvements were built (improvements which CCC/ME claims it does not oppose). Respectfully submitted, Donald M. Davis Partner 3/30/2010 3 o IJ- 171 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-236-0600 phone 213=236-2700 fax 213-236-2702 direct ddavis@bwslaw.com www.bwslaw.com 3/30/2010 / a /— v From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:39 PM To: carlam@rpv.com; terit@rpv.com Subject: FW: Response letter to Architect Scott Boydston's March 17, 2010 Letter to RPV Attachments: Architect Scott Boydston letter March 29 2010.doc IN Architect Scott Boydston lette... Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv P Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. -----Original Message ----- From: bubba32@cox.net [mailto:bubba32@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:18 PM To: aram@rpv.com Cc: jlkarp@cox.net Subject: Response letter to Architect Scott Boydston's March 17, 2010 Letter to RPV Ara I have attached a letter of response to Architect Scot Boydstons' letter of March 17, 2010 that was included with the Staff Report for March 30, 2010 (with attachments). The subjects covered are 1.) The Revised Alternative Field Location as an amended and compliant Alternative D-1 responsive to those specific concerns raised by Architect Boydston, and 2.) Concerns previously expressed in a comment letter about the vagaries of the multiple issues of Preliminary Grading Plans, Geotechnical and Architectural. This revision to the Alternative D-1 field location and setting addresses the "safety" issue that the Council has expressed. This revised Alternative field is exactly the same size as that proposed by the College at the Western site as shown in their latest Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan of January 2010. In addition to retention of the field in basically the same location and elevation, it has now been adjusted to allow for the required Fire Lane access, and incorporates (by reference) all drainage and irrigation upgrades necessary to satisfy the geologist's concerns. It introduces two relatively small retaining walls at the S/W corner in the area already approved for re -grading near the Rose Garden area, but does not occupy any otherwise unstable soil identified in the May 10, 2005 ASE Recommendations or shear key. 1 ' y� /" ,D f / .0 / While it does add new retaining walls, it eliminates four larger walls at the Western field site as well as eliminating a significant amount of grading at that location. It has another beneficial effect on minimizing the height of the lower/upper tennis court retaining walls as well. It is estimated that the grading will be reduced by several thousand cubic yards at the existing site, and over 30,000 cubic yards of grading would be eliminated at the western field site no longer needed. The proposed tennis court tennis courts would also be minimized as well due to decreased site grading there as well. Because the field is slightly pivoted and moved westward, it now displaces fewer parking spaces than previous versions. It is acknowledged that should the 261' setback of that Eastern parking lot is required, there would be more displaced such spaces, but if the 80' setback remains as the College has requested, there would be a minimal number of spaces displaced. Those replaced spaces added at the western parking area would be placed virtually on or near existing grade and would not require significant additional grading quantities. The parking at that location along PUDE has already been considered and varianced for aesthetics which would only be minimally affected. I also appreciate the new information provided in Architect Boydston's 7 page communication letter, particularly those thoughtful remarks and clarifications directed toward a better understanding of certain aspects of the 5 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans that have been in place since August 2005. I believe that together we have sorted through these exchanges a number of misconceptions with constructive clarifications, including a responsive answer for ASE's drainage issue I had sought. What still remains outstanding for resolution is the unresolved disclosure of validated grading quantities requested by you of September 18, 2009, but not yet received, although such are to be provided by the College for the Appeal per the latest information in the February 16, 2009 Staff Report. Your review of the latest and compliant field reconfiguration will be appreciated. Jim Gordon 2 a �� James B. Gordon 3538 Bendigo Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275-6202 310-541-7336 Scott Boydstun, A.I.A., LEED AP Rasmussen & Associates. Architecture, Planning, Interiors, 248 South Mills Road Ventura, California 93003 805-644-7347 Monday, March 29, 2010 Subject: Letter to Ara Mihranian, AICP dated March 17, 2010 and included in the March 30, 2010 Staff Report (w/attachments) Architect Boydstun: Thank you for your clarifications to my concerns expressed regarding a number of important issues currently under review by the City Council. It is axiomatic that when such concerns are allowed to lie fallow and unanswered, misconceptions can remain. Perhaps at least some of those concerns could have been avoided if the College had complied with the request made to provide the exhibit requested September 18, 2009. "- Based on the Council's direction, the College is to prepare an exhibit (site plan) showing a regulation size athletic field in the approximate location of the existing field. It is suggested that the College refer to the exhibit prepared by Staff and transmitted to the College and the Council on September 11, 2009 (this exhibit is also available on the City's website). As depicted in the Staff prepared exhibit, approximately 90 parking spaces were relocated to the Western edge of the campus to accommodate the regulation size athletic field." September 18, 2009 e-mail RPV Principal Planner Ara Mihranian Further misconceptions should have been avoided if the College had provided the detailed grading information also requested; College President Brophy had claimed that they had been provided; In preparing this analysis, Marymount has addressed every question posed by City staff in Mr. Mihranian's e-mail of September 18, 2009, and then some. Marymount College BA Program Analysis October 6, 2009 11 Page Because the (below) information has not been provided to the City to date, there remains legitimate concern with the grading quantities shown in the Earthwork section of the succession of 5 Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plans that have been provided over these past 44 months since August 2005 when the present EIR commenced. In oddttion to the above, Cit' :StW reepests that the Gotlege•pruuid:e.expanded or addltional'infbrmatiora that is not G teEi move f[9dt vYtt# eesist tta City end #tiein bdtter~.undtms ing.`tha,4: }year program aro to pitpac'irao #10 41wfti hit eptal analysis expeditiously, as }tt oteZ# b tfie Cid Catitieil. talled ely, Etadl9ressj Putatie ptirntCrtte:r#rI+�J (retndll) 9airl�, afregtksSts thaki Coltee s#ririt a de.9 lr dt�vn A the Krrap� tthycArtc.ieas a rixker ea_h�rEtilrn d riut�ide of fhb bctiliilgg :footprint inA lojag_7a lkrg lots, uwallcvyays, tia is catrrks, atFr}etio bald s .bt r roJ t ornpansnt Tfiis #rifcarrr�atian stiar=tid be paegarad .and vet -stamped #ay a Cwensed engineer; Kt Vis, amity. Wff. is :a"Hote to paracjpates in a rneating or r 'fdwdiiGe alt vti##f? :the CeftgO* team to address ff*- 064 t#u*stsend`,gde4tI00s: Am Arra W1ehaol; WIbrani.o-n F'#-inctpel Planner Gl' orf Rancho Pefts erdes 30940 Hawthorne 61vd, 11x1" hp Palos Ver , CA 90275. 3 Q 5 1-5 2 (t�elephGngy 4Q-544-52-93 (fox) ar�lrr?rg�k�;Qr� uwuttr._p;�{,4�Y.er4igs;com(I'pv Do you really need to pant t�is a mail? 10/16/2009 9-18 As shown (following) these validated grading quantities have not been provided and are scheduled to be "provided to the Council at the time the appeal hearing is resumed." Why not before? MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT - DRAFT APPENDIX D CITY COUNCIL MEMO - FEBRUARY 16, 2010 Grading Plans At the September 12th meeting, a concern was raised by the public that the grading plans do not accurately reflect the amount of earth movement needed to accommodate the construction of the project approved by the Planning Commission (that is currently under appeal). Specifically, concerns were expressed with the quantity of the requested remedial 21 Page grading presented to the Commission during its deliberations on the project. Staff has requested, and the College has agreed, to provide the City with grading plans that have been updated to reflect the Commission's decision. Moreover, the College will be providing the City with a break -down of the quantities of earth movement for the areas under the proposed building footprint and the areas outside the building footprint, as requested in the City's grading applications. This information will be provided to the Council at the time the appeal hearing is resumed. Page 15-8 It is quite reasonable to have a concern that information has been provided (October 6, 2009), when that is found to not be true and a revised Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan appears on January 15, 2010 that does not include any such requested information, followed by the City Staff's Report of a new delivery date. It is a responsible and reasonable reaction to question these conflicting circumstances. They do not engender public perceptions of confidence in this apparently conflicted process. While I most appreciate your extensive response, I will attempt to further clarify where these are appropriate or address remaining issues. 1. (a) "The site of the existing athletic field is not sufficient to meet current NCAA regulations" (RPV statement) You state and confirm that the College has never made any representations as to the field being of regulation size. That is half true because; 1.the College has stated that the existing field is NOT regulation size and, 2. Has proposed what reasonably would be considered a new and regulation -sized field adjacent to the proposed tennis courts. However, you did make such a statement that "As shown on the attached existing conditions plan, the playing area is below any size standard for reasonable play." That was in reference to the offending Rasmussen Sheet Al which you later describe. In fact, the note on that sheet describes this shape and clearly denotes "Existing soccer fields to be removed" You did not refer to some generalized field for multipurpose use. Nonetheless, the real concern as to size is really all about what is now proposed. Moreover, the College is not proposing to become an NCAA 1 member. 3 1 P a g e Athletic Programs With respect to athletic programs, if Marymount becomes accredited by WASC as a limited four- year institution, then this would be just one of several requirements that would have to be met before the College could even apply for membership in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), which is the organization the College would most likely join in order to have its students participate in any intercollegiate sports. As such, any such changes remain speculative. The College has reviewed the requirements for joining the NAIA's Golden State Athletic Conference, which consists of small Christian Colleges in the Southern California region. Marymount does not envision itself joining this conference because such membership would require a minimum number of sports teams and the College simply does not have at the present time and does not foresee having in the future the requisite number of teams in the applicable sports to participate in this conference. 1. (b) Neither Appendix D nor document referenced any between the Library and the Alternative D-1, the College's comments on the potential physical impediment athletic field location analyzed in That is a correct statement. There was a presumption (only) that such incorrectly -depicted location would have been a valid reason to relocate the Alternative D-1 (City version) away from that potential obstruction. Subsequent conversation with City Staff confirmed that such physical impediment was not the reason for 'relocation. You have, however, confirmed that such depiction was in error (page 5) that "It is very typical in a lengthy EIR process not to update exhibits." However the referenced Exhibit had been updated, but only partially — the offending portion was not updated while the remaining portion of the changed Library had been updated/changed appropriately. Admittedly an oversight not responsible — as presupposed — for causing a change of Alternate field location. 1. The athletic field location in Alternative D-1 would create a significant public safety hazard. I agree with your statement and wish to correct and withdraw my previous statement on that point. However, you may wish to consult your proposed site plan that presently appears not to comply with this requirement for Fire Access to the north exterior wall portion of the Classroom building which is shown to be about 200' away vs. Code "must be no more than 150 feet away from where a Fire Department Emergency vehicle would park." 41 Page 2. (Page 4) Retaining the athletic field "as -is" and "where is" is not a responsible alternative according to the City's geologist and environmental consultant. While my statement that retention of the existing field does not introduce any new problematic drainage or irrigation issues is factually correct, I concede your point that a re -graded field would potentially add such issues. I have a very difficult time conceding that the present field poses any kind of new such drainage or irrigation issues since it has not caused any such issues for these past 32 years. The grasscrete denial is an entirely different matter because it involves both re -grading is below the direct flow -line of significant areas along San Ramon that admittedly do need to be retained through drainage improvements. Nonetheless, to move ahead, I believe that a revised field, re -graded and provided with recommended drainage and grading features to satisfy the geologist's concerns would be feasible and no longer pose such a danger. In so doing, I accede to the professional judgment that must control as you so state. c. City Staff's prior recommendation to shift additional parking spaces onto the site of the current sports field area would conflict with Alternative D-1, and based on analysis in Appendix D, would further increase the significant and unmitigated environmental impacts of Alternative D-1. This is also correct only so far as that Alternative is not modified. The location should and can be modified in a way that dramatically reduces displacement of proposed East Paring area spaces. If modified to allow a 261' setback vs. 80', there would be a greater number of displaced spaces. Such revision would also preclude the Reinstatement of Residential Buildings at that location. With that caveat understood, however as shown in the accompanying revised Alternative D-1 plan, an appropriately re- located and equivalent sized field could easily be placed to the west of the present Alternative location similar to the location at present, but slightly rotated and moved westward. This revised Alternative D-1 has several advantages and few of the previously -reviewed disadvantages discussed. • The revised field is shown relocated and superimposed on the January 6, 2010 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. The transplanted field is 51 Page __ identical in size to the proposed field at the western site location. • The field has been transplanted exactly from that same plan. )M BLDG .52 .52 S 4 TG X This revised field location adds two retaining walls at the S/W corner at elevation 909'. The field would be graded at nearly that same elevation and require minimal added grading quantities. • This minor relocation provides for ample fire lane access and minimizes the loss of East parking lot spaces. • Field noise levels are reduced by this shift and no other nearby neighbors would be impacted by retention. • This revision solves the Safety issues that initiated the field review by the City Council in September 2009. 6 1 P a g e • This design adds two retaining walls at the S/W corner; The N/S wall ranges in height from 0 feet to 20' - 115' in length; the ENV section ranges from 20' high to zero and is 60' in length. Top of Wall is Elevation is 910. • These proposed new walls are NOT located on a previously designated area of instability and have already been approved for cosmetic re -grading. • The shifted field elevation is 909' along the touch lines and 910.8 along the center of the field. As such the amount of new grading (from the existing field) is minimal, and saves several thousand Cubic Yards of grading otherwise shown in this location on the (Approved) Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan of May 15, 2009. • The proposed field at the western portion of this site would not need to be graded, thereby saving 19,800 cubic yards of excavation and 14,845 Cubic Yards of embankment, a total saving on-site (balanced grading) of 34,792 Cubic Yards, not including the excavation saved at the existing location. • Retention of the field, would eliminate all ball safety issues and concerns. • No new retractable nets would be required. The current 20' high fixed nets would be retained and shifted. • Drainage would not flow onto any of the south or east side slope areas and the proposed new drainage features would be emplaced roughly as presently planned and shown for that area and the new field along PUDE. • Spectator areas would be greatly superior to the proposed Western site, especially with removal of the 9' high N/S Tennis wall along the N/E corner of that proposed field. • Four proposed Retaining walls would be eliminated from the proposed western site at the N/W and S/W corners. • With no grading of the new field site, the proposed heights of the Tennis N/S retaining walls would be lower and walls substantially minimized, with the lower wall possibly removed entirely. • Protective fencing if any (as now) would be placed along the border area of the field, but no new high netting would otherwise be required. • The aesthetic concerns raised with the relocation of some of the East Parking spaces to the western area along PVDE have been addressed for the parking there now, simply extended as needed (to the left) along PVDE. 7 1 P a g e 9ofr� 2. Responses to comments on preliminary drainage and grading plans. My repeated attempts to directly contact various state officials and project consultants (including the City's own consultants) have been duly communicated by CC and personal contact. The City has been kept fully informed. The only regret is that such contacts have not been answered such that any misinformation could have been resolved before now. I wish to thank you for your insights as to the change in authorship of the most recent plan dated January 6, 2010. 1 did not receive any transmittal letter for this latest plan which was received by the City on January 15, 2010. To the best of my knowledge this plan has not yet been provided to or referenced by City Staff to the Council other than to state it is to be used for review at the Appeal Hearing March 30, 2010. My statement is correct that this latest plan reflects a new drafting source is especially correct with respect to Geotechnical Maps. Rasmussen & Associates have of course provided "architectural" information but have not previously been directly providing geotechnical Maps Plates I or ll. There is a significant difference that I will elaborate on in a moment. I thank and respect the clarification that these are "preliminary" and may not match the current site plan. My concern was only to the extent that such mismatches did not cause further decision complications. The ASE response is appreciated, but again, it illustrates a different version of their statement of May 19, 2009. In other words, my question was fully reasonable and legitimate, deserving of a proper clarification. It was at that time understood that ASE had only a short 4 -day response time to complete its analysis and may have made a mistake because of such short notice. The drain line is now acknowledged by ASE to be BELOW (not within) the compacted area of the shear key "within bedrock" BELOW the shear key 81 Page itself. As shown in the previously -supplied Trenching depth analysis, this is one very deep trench along the south slope, well in excess of 20'. 1 would also note that the more recent grading plan does slightly reduce this calculated depth with a further revision to the drainage line routing and an increase in the field area elevation. The statement that there are "no grades listed on the Latest Grading Plan" most likely refers to the grade levels of the Drain itself. Otherwise there are extensive elevation grades of the FG shown in any grading plan. That the proposed storm drain will not adversely affect the slope stability is the reason for my concern. With regard to your comments on Page 6, stating that my concerns are "baseless" remains to be seen and is unproven because the College has not yet provided the wet -stamped grading quantities requested September 18, 2009 by the City. My concern is with the Geotechnical description and Cross Sections which display an extensive soil buttress shear key swath of excavation across the entirety of the south facing slope, whether or not residence halls are incorporated in any final project. Such additional grading amounts most likely significantly an additional exceed 100,000 CY of combined cut and fill, balanced on-site. This shear key grading has not been shown shown in any Phase I Exhibit 3-7a (DEIR & FEIR) or Exhibit 3- 8 (DEIR). You should be aware that the "architectural" & non -wet stamped January 6, 2010 plan delivered to the City on January 15th, 2010 does not contain any Cross Sections or requested grading quantities. All prior such plans (Geotechnical and Architectural have incorporated and included Cross sections. This one does not. Why? Instead, there is a subtle and cryptic "Note" that references ASE's May 10, 2005 Geotechnical recommendations to which the Project must comply. That is a significant change from past practice and it that sends a cautionary warning note. The March 13, 2007 Plan was also an architectural version, not as advertised in the Geology Section 5.6 of the DEIR as showing the shear key. 91 Page NOTES t. GWING SMALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF WCHO PAL VERDES GRADING REQUIREMEW S, THE UNIFORM BUILDING COD& AND ME RECOMWND477ONS OF THE SOILS REPO 'T NO. 05-5470.-2 BY ASSOC147ED SOILS ENGINEERING INCA DATED MAY f 0, 2005. 2. SEE ARCHIT CM PLAN FOR, SITE L AUT. J. AREA OF SITU' IS 24.57 Aces 4. THE PROPOSED .DETENTION IRISIN WILL BE DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN PRE-DE&OPMENT RUNOFF LEVELS The shear key description and illustration from the July 19, 2005 Geotechnical Map Plate I has been redacted from the January 6, 2010 Architectural Plan Why is this required shear key no longer displayed your most recent Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan? 101 Page /0�, -o/- /Zo You have not addressed this key point in your response to this expressed concern raised in my related Comment letter. Moreover it appears that the latest grading plan (Rasmussen & Associates) has been updated to achieve environmental benefits. Raising the "field ridge" to elevation 894' from 893', as you acknowledge to "improve drainage" seems a bit deceptive because you also raise the touchlines to elevation 892.4' from 891.4' so the claim that this is to allow for "positive drainage" is not the reason at all because the relationship between the centerline "ridge" and touchlines remains constant. Am I missing something here? It is my observation. that you raised the entire field by 1' to reduce the environmental impact of the amount of saved grading, not top promote better drainage. Same observation for the increase in elevation of the tennis courts: Yes, that does impact and allow for a net reduction in the associated retaining walls as you state. But my concern is that the Geotechnical remedial grading must be done before those courts are finished. Please see my "Homemade" illustration from Geotechnical Plate II Cross Section C — C' below that illustrates this concept. . Mrewrµra www TY r. This remedial grading Cross Section has remained unchanged since itfirst appeared in the July 19th, 2oo5 Geotechnical Site Plan, Plate II. From the above, and this is my real concern, is the red area (remedial grading — shear key, etc.) required per the mandatory May 10, 2005 ASE 111 Page 13 of /�n recommendations for site stability, must be excavated before adding back the compacted fill necessary to achieve the finished grade (FG) of the Courts themselves. Raising the level of those courts does not save, and in fact INCREASES the amount of balanced -on site grading required. The real problem, as I see it, is that the remedial grading for the shear key and May 10 2005 recommendations has not yet been disclosed in any of the Earthwork summaries and that the 79,200 Cubic Yards of grading are vastly understated and are thus significantly deceptive. If you take the time to do the simple math for the basic excavation needed to get to the approved average FG elevation of 892.5' from the average existing grade of 900.1', then add a foot for over -excavation to allow surface base, you then have excavation of 8.6' or so times just the actual tennis court area of 120' X 240' = 28,800 sq. ft. X 8.6 = 247,680 cubic ft. Dividing by 27 sq. ft. per Cubic Yard equals 9,173 CY of excavation. But you have not done the remedial grading as shown in the Cross Section C — G. That must also be done as well and adds an average depth of at least 15' over an area of about 150'X 120' or 18,000 sq. ft X 15 = 270,000 cubic ft. of excavation, or 10,000 CY. When you total the Basic 9,173 CY plus the remedial 10,000 CY, there is approximately 19,173 CY of total excavation. By convention, when this is put back (25% shrinkage used), the total combined grading is 1.75 X 19,173 CY or = 33,552 CY. If you then add back the 8' or so that you have raised the courts FS you need an additional 28,800 X 8' = 230,400 cubic feet of fill (before discounting for shrinkage) that means another 67,400 CY of total grading. The final tennis Court grading now totals to nearly 40,000 CY (39,952 CY). Since the "frontage" of these courts is only 120' of the 1,100 total shear key width, it would appear reasonable to project that the reaming remedial grading quantities will assure that the present Earthwork grading quantities are in fact vastly understated. That is my basic concern which has yet to be addressed, substantiated or debunked. That question remains unanswered and needs to be. 121 Page /�f 0F Ila NOW.* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MARYMOUNT OOCLEOE FAGILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT 00nstrMlon Phastag, 04slyat . E3th16143+7A A comparison of Rasmussen's Phase I site plan (above) with the geotechnical plan is revealing. The Phase I "architectural" plan discloses no �- g„/'/B°/sB�"''�pi1�%k's!"'��`��a°�Cf ��1� �.1 5 d'�®gDr�•f7 �t'P �h �1��',+'lp�j� r !T r _Z1 r wg lt1U'fil�r��f�4'.��'�<i•�.'�IV �P�Jyd! 6ja PT4la a�f`Il �I + lOf ts'!"// Z �j,:i� iu'f,Sr'r" R rigBail �4 i / 0 '�<r t ra . s � sir .�fi arfi�'fj%I r� �� d1 5"�s� � ���F �...tse�Crr�ir��e� �.,,,�:rm .�= a� l �' ra fi !F ;�✓f,� +fir✓OF WA �r�Ad� _ x '�0"•��I�4;Qf � v .fry;*� Shear key site grading across the entire south facing slope, whereas the "geotechnical" Plate I (red area) discloses the full extent of this added remedial grading required by ASE's May 10 2005 recommendations. 131 Page EARTHWORK Vf RHES ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: DUE TO THE PRELIMINMY NATURE OF THESE PLANS, QUANTITIES MAY VARY AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS MAY REQUIRE ADIUSTMERTS TO COMPENSATE FOR SUBSIDENOVILOSSES DUE TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING OPERATIONS, SITE SPECIFICS, C, DURING FINAL GRADING PLAN PREPARATION, PARKING LOT GRADES WILL BE HELD AT R NEAR THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN 10FN S AND FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS WILL BE. VARIED TO BALANCE EARTHWORK ON—SITE. EXCAVATIONEMBANIOAME SITE GRADING 60000 C.Y. 40000 C.Y. LOSS DUE TO CLEARING k GRUBBING: —3000 C.Y. 1000 C.Y. SUBTOTAL 57000 C.Y. 41000 C.Y. OVEREXCAVATION: 10000 C.Y, 10000 C.Y. . SUBTOTAL 67000 C.Y. 51DOO O.Y. SHRINKAGE O 25%: —16000 C.Y. 0 C.Y. TOTAL 51000 C.Y. 51000 C.Y. N�(1)ROENOEWN TIOVE ARE RID SURFACE VOLUMES CWFROMM EXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS ON THIS PLAN. (2) OF ARING OAND VER THE GRUBBING O ARRA NS ARE ASSUMED TO RESULT IN A LOSS (3) THE SHRINKAGE FACTOR OF 25% APPLIED TO THE EXCAVATION QUANTITY IS ASSUMED. (4) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS, THE PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION AND BUILDING FOUNDATIONS ARE ASSUMED TO BE 1.0', (5) ESTIMATED QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDE EXCAVATION FOR UTILITY k STORM. DRAIN TRENCHES. (S) MAXIMUM DEPTH OF CUT s 25' (7) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FILL 1S' (6) FOR THE 5 ASSUMED TO BE 3F5' BASE EARTHWORK AELOW THIONISH GRACALCULATIONS, OVEREXCAVATION 1 DRIVE Ep,SS ABBREVIATIONS NOTES 1. GRADING VERDES CODE AF No. 399: 2. SEE ARC 3. AREA OF 4. THE RRC MAINTAIN .ce�o AOFAS50tok DATE SIGNED -4--1 If you can verify for the City that all of the required remedial grading of the soil buttress shear key has been included in all of the Earthwork grading quantities, then that will be just fine. But in my opinion, this is the real underlying issue (literally and figuratively) and by not addressing shear key and all grading quantities requested by the City gives the perception that something is missing and not right. I appreciate your response as noted herein. Jim Gordon CC: Ara Mihranian. Principal Planner Marymount Expansion City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Electronic correspondence by e-mail) 141 Page /I � 6 /— /Ze From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:42 PM To: carlam@rpv.com; terit@rpv.com Subject: FW: MC Enrollment 09-10 Attachments: MC RPV Enrollment.pdf Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.pa.losverdes.com/r,pv "W Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Michael Brophy [mailto:MBrophy@marymountpv.edu] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:32 PM To: 'Ara M'; 'Davis, Donald M.'; 'Joel Rojas'; 'Carol W. Lynch'; 'David Snow' Ce: 'Michael Laughlin' Subject: MC Enrollment 09-10 Ara Here's the doc you requested. Thanks for checking in about this. Hard copies are on the way. Michael Michael S. Brophy, Ph.D., M.F.A. President of Marymount College 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 310-377-5501 mbrophy@marymountpv.edu www.marymountpv.edu /af a 3/30/2010 ME March 26, 2010 Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275-5391 Dear Mr. Mihranian, Pursuant to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 9 —Revision C, Marymount College is submitting certification of enrollment as follows: ➢ Full-time enrollment, fall semester 2009 — 555 ➢ Full-time enrollment, spring semester 2010 - 525 ➢ Part-time enrollment, fall semester 2009 — 6 ➢ Part-time enrollment, spring semester 2010 — 20 Respectfully submitted, Michael Semenoff Director of Research, Planning and Assessment President, Michael Brophy Vice President for Finance and Administration, James Reeves From: Joel Rojas Doelr@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:16 AM To: 'Carla Morreale'; 'Ara M' Cc: 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Blackmail by Marymount? Dear Lois, Today I was disappointed to read in the paper that you accuse Marymount of "blackmail." I know what blackmail is and Marymount is not committing blackmail as far as I know. Blackmail is, for example, when a councilmember hires an attorney who then demands of two councilmembers that they address a matter of public interest in closed session in violation of the Brown Act and vote his way or else he will report "violations" by those councilmembers. That is exactly what the late Councilmember Gardiner did to me and I called him out on it. (You were silent.) If Marymount were "blackmailing" me I would call them out as well. They have not threatened me with anything and their decision to try to get signatures for a ballot initiative is a legal right they (and you) have. Accusations of criminal activity like blackmail should not be made without evidence. If you have any evidence of blackmail you should provide it. If not, you should publicly withdraw the accusation and you should apologize. Public debate in this country has deteriorated far enough. False accusations simply should not be tolerated anymore. As for your list of compromises below I appreciate your sharing this information and I will review it carefully and let you know if I have any questions. Staff --please include this e-mail chain in late correspondence. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes From: Tom Long[mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:27 AM To: jlkarp@cox.net Cc: clehr@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com; tlong@nossaman.com Subject: Re: Blackmail by Marymount? LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC/ME AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FAVOR OF MARYMOUNT CCC/ME: • October 14, 2000 proactively set meeting with Marymount Board of Trustees to explore ways the neighborhood could work with the college • We assured the college that remodeling of the present campus with the addition of a library would not be contested • In 2002 we entered into the EIR the Alternative Plan of the Living Campus & the Academic Campus because we believed it was the win-win for the college and the residents PLANNING COMMISSION COMPROMISED THE NEIGHBORS BY: • Approving 92,000 sq. ft college to grow to 210,000 sq. ft on only 13 buildable acres (high density) • Approving the site as suitable in size and shape even though construction near steep topography (opposite to the City Counci11990 resolution) Approving 8 -years of construction • Approving CUP for buildings up to 45' high (16' by Code) • Accepting the bulk & mass of the new buildings as compatible with surrounding homes • Extending hours of operation to 11 PM • Removing mandatory traffic & parking mitigations measures (now all voluntary) • Accepting parking that was less than Code • Allowing applicant to reduce street parking rather than take all parking off the City streets as promised to the neighbors • Reducing street side set backs 3/30/2010 / ®T • Removing the San Ramon Covenants • Accepting 14,000 Sq It of modular buildings, after EIR comment period closed • Removing the Affordable Housing • Acting as Lead Agency & not stabilizing the project (per CEQA) which lead to constant changes • Approving excessive grading • Violating the General Plan & Municipal Code with excessive variances & CUP 3/30/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:49 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC.doc From: jlkarp [mailto:jlkarp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:45 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC.doc LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC/ME AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FAVOR OF MARYMOUNT CCC/ME: • October 14, 2000 proactively set meeting with Marymount Board of Trustees to explore ways the neighborhood could work with the college • We assured the college that remodeling of the present campus with the addition of a library would not be contested • In 2002 we entered into the EIR the Alternative Plan of the Living Campus & the Academic Campus because we believed it was the win-win for the college and the residents PLANNING COMMISSION COMPROMISED THE NEIGHBORS BY: • Approving 92,000 sq. ft college to grow to 210,000 sq. ft on only 13 buildable acres (high density) • Approving the site as suitable in size and shape even though construction near steep topography (opposite to the City Councill990 resolution) • Approving 8 -years of construction • Approving CUP for buildings up to 45' high (16' by Code) • Accepting the bulk & mass of the new buildings as compatible with surrounding homes • Extending hours of operation to 11 PM • Removing mandatory traffic & parking mitigations measures (now all voluntary) • Accepting parking that was less than Code • Allowing applicant to reduce street parking rather than take all parking off the City streets as promised to the neighbors • Reducing street side set backs • Removing the San Ramon Covenants • Accepting 14,000 Sq .Ft of modular buildings, after EIR comment period closed • Removing the Affordable Housing • Acting as Lead Agency & not stabilizing the project (per CEQA) which lead to constant changes • Approving excessive grading • Violating the General Plan & Municipal Code with excessive variances & CUP 1 �'T 3/30/2010 �" From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:43 PM To: carlam@rpv.com; terit@rpv.com Subject: FW: Marymount Expansion EIR -Agenda Item March 30, 2010 Council Meeting Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv com_ www.balosyerdes.comI v ADo you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:09 PM To: 'Ara M' Cc: 'Joel Rojas' Subject: FW: Marymount Expansion EIR - Agenda Item March 30, 2010 Council Meeting From: Marilee Smith [mailto:marasmith@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:57 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Expansion EIR - Agenda Item March 30, 2010 Council Meeting The noise, dust, and traffic congestion accompanying an eight year construction cycle is the equivalent, to us, of a permanent blight on our neighborhood! Please, for the sake of our sanity, reject the EIR. Thank You, Robert and Marilee Smith 31205 Ganado Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3/30/2010 a From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:53 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount Appeal (corrected formatting) -----Original Message ----- From: Terri Glidden [mailto:terriglidden@yahoo.com) Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:01 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Appeal (corrected formatting) Dear Council, I am one of Marymount College's near neighbors. The College campus is within eyesight and earshot of my home. I drive past it on a regular basis. Two decades ago, I sent my kids to preschool there. Later on, I sent them to Marymount-administered summer programs. I vote there. I have attended cultural events there. When asked for directions to my home, I am proud to say I live "right near Marymount College." However, I am not and never have been affiliated with the College in any official capacity. I am writing to you out of concern for the unbalanced hysteria that the so-called Concerned Citizens' Coalition is attempting to foment with regard to the long -overdue renovation of Marymount College. The CCC continues to shamelessly and flagrantly misrepresent the facts to the public with regard to Marymount operating hours, variances, parking, grading, and construction permits. Once again, a few individuals are inciting neighborhood anxiety over the reasonable exercise of property rights by the College to maintain and improve its capital assets for its own benefit and the benefit of the community. The College has made every effort to respect their opposition, even to the extent of denying other members of the community the resources we have long enjoyed -- in particular the Marymount Early Childhood Education Program Preschool. With great reluctance, Marymount agreed to close the Preschool, to maintain offsite dormitories, to cap student population, and to change building heights and locations, but to no avail. The College's good -faith efforts to accommodate community concerns were wasted because the opposition has a barely -hidden long-term agenda to obstruct the educational mission of the College, deny the College's legitimate right to the full use of its property, and force the sale of its prime real estate in favor of exclusive residential development. These outcomes represent a tragic loss to the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula and in particular to the east side, which has fewer community assets than either the center or the west side of the Peninsula. At long last, the College has realized that its efforts to compromise have been thrown away on the insatiable appetite of the CCC, and is regrouping to recapture some of the vision encompassed in its original proposal. Thank goodness for that! I am one neighbor who wants the Preschool back. I want Marymount's facilities and programs. Our community will be enhanced by the College's investment in making the site a beautiful modern complete center for higher education. Sincerely, Terri Glidden 30621 Tarapaca Road Rancho Palos Verdes From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:59 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision on the Marymount Plan From: mrsrpv@aol.com [mailto:mrsrpv@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:49 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision on the Marymount Plan Mayor Steve Wolowicz Mayor Pro Tem Long Honorable City Council Members Mizetich, Campbell, and Stern Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Marymount Expansion Marymount College is a great asset to our community. I am a close neighbor of the college and have been for more than twenty years. I totally support the new college plan including dorms. I believe that housing students on campus will actually cut down the number of round trips students make to the college. I exit Ganado every morning and return every evening and have never had a problem with traffic. I realize some of the opponents of the plan claim increased traffic. However, I believe the impact will be the exact opposite. The new state-of-the-art library will also enable students to stay on campus to do their schoolwork. Parking should not be an issue either. The Marymount Plan will get cars off the street and out of our surrounding neighborhoods. Parking will be contained on campus. The enrollment cap will not be raised. The Marymount Plan indicates its new facilities will be available to the community. I see this as an enormous benefit. The gym and the library are going to be state-of-the-art facilities and will be available to locals. My homeowners' association Mediterranea has used the meeting rooms in the past for our annual meeting. Almost every election some of Marymount's rooms are convenient polling booths. Marymount has always been a good neighbor to this community. I remember when my children were students at Mira Catalina Elementary. Marymount held an international festival for the children. They served food from their home countries, wore native costumes, and did traditional dances. The students at Mira Cat were able to learn about other cultures first hand. There are also many lectures and concerts open to the public at no charge. We are very lucky to have such a fine institution close by. Marymount College is hardly trying to "blackmail" anyone into acceptance of the plan as one unsigned flyer (left on our mailboxes) stated. Marymount is entitled, as is any other institution of higher learning, to modernize their facilities. They have a very large parcel of land and more than 60% of the property will remain open space. Some vocal opponents have tried to make it sound like "everyone" in the neighborhood is opposed to the Marymount Plan. That is simply not the case. My husband and I both support the plan and encourage you to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Barbara Ferraro 3530 Seaglen Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-377-1592 3/30/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:52 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount expansion -----Original Message ----- From: Fernando Penalosa [mailto:cosio@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:06 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount expansion PLEASE do not approve this project! 8 years of construction is too much. Too much noise, too much disruption. This is a residential neighborhood and we do not need business expansion in our neighborhood. The college is already too much of a nuisance. I'm sure you have gotten a lot of emails detailing all the problems the project entails. Please don't let this business impact our neighborhood any further. Please approve the Alternative Plan of a Living and Academic Campus. Thank you. Doris and Fernando Penalosa. W From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:55 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount Expansion From: DanandSue Bernstein [mailto:suedanb@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:14 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Expansion Dear RPV City Council Members, We support and concur with all of the issues raised by the Concerned Citizens'/Marymount Expansion against the Planning Commission decision on Marymount expansion. Sincerely, Minnie L Smith & John D Smith 2809 San Ramon Drive Daniel Bernstein & R Susan Bernstein 2817 San Ramon Drive Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. _S__gn.___u_p..._now..... 3/30/2010 Page 1 of 1 Carla Morreale From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 2:09 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Protect Our Community from Marymount's Aggressive Tactic From: Kollar [mailto:dkollar@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 1:28 PM To: cc@rpv.com Cc: 'jlkarp'; melissa.pamer@dailybreeze.com Subject: Protect Our Community from Marymount's Aggressive Tactic Honorable City Council Members, I have attended numerous planning commission meetings and over time a compromise evolved that allowed the school to go forward with their modernization plans WITHOUT the dormitories and the immediate community was tolerant of this arrangement. The next thing that I learned was that the school was "impatient" about the progress and decided to circumvent the bylaws that manage our overall community. In essence going around the reason why the City of Rancho Palos Verdes was established for in the first place ....... to stop developers from destroying the quality of life in our community. Marymount is intent on putting an "apartment" with 125 units in the middle of a residential area for their profit much like the other developers that tried to invade our community. As a long time member of the taxpaying citizens of RPV I consider it your responsibility to protect us from this aggressive tactic. If Marymount can go around the City Council to achieve their goals with this ballot shame....... how can you stop Trump from adding a Casino? I beseech all of you to DEFEND our community! Thank you for your time and consideration. Best Regards -- Bob Kollar 3/30/2010 From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:37 PM To: carlam@rpv.com Cc: terit@rpv.com Subject: FW: Marymount Comment Letter for 3-30-10 Council Meeting Attachments: ScanOO1. PDF Scan001.PDF (1 MB) Carla, Did you get this as late correspondence? Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv P Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. -----Original Message ----- From: Davis, Donald M. [mailto:DDavis@bwslaw.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:22 AM To: Ara M; Joel Rojas Cc: Carol W. Lynch; Dave Snow Subject: Marymount Comment Letter for 3-30-10 Council Meeting Dear City Staff, I am submitting this updated comment letter. A copy has been delivered to each City Councilmember. Based on the current staff report and additional public comments released as of Friday, the College will be providing some additional information today or tomorrow. Regards, Donald M. Davis Partner 444 South Flower Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-236-0600 phone 213-236-2700 fax 213-236-2702 direct www.bwslaw.com l o'� e� 1 Carla Morreale From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:44 PM To: 'Carla Morreale; 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: FW: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC Attachments: Lot PTH 2 LaughlinlMG_0003.jpg; Lot POT HLaughlininformationlMG_0002.jpg; Overlay_of_P.V._North[3].JPG; PVNorth.jpg; Lot PTH 2 LaughlinlMG_0003.jpg; Lot POT HLaughlininformation lMG_0002.jpg; Overlay_of P.V._North[3].JPG; PVNorth.jpg i A A L - d- "A A I— A 'A Lot PTH 2 Lot POT ughlinIMG_0003.Jp4ughlininformationIP Overlay_oP P.V._N PVNorth.jpg (115 orth[3].JPG (... KB) Lot PTH 2 Lot POT ughlinIMG_0003.jpgiughlininformationIP Overlay_oP P.V._N orth[3].JPG (... PVNorth.jpg (115 KB) Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv P Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. -----Original Message ----- From: Long, Thomas D. [mailto:tlong@nossaman.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:31 PM To: Ara M Subject: FW: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC Can hard copies of these items be brought. -----Original Message ----- From: jlkarp [mailto:jlkarp@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:24 PM To: Long, Thomas D. Subject: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC ----- Original Message ----- > Subject: Fw: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:10:55 -0700 > LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC/ME AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN > FAVOR OF MARYMOUNTFYI > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Long, Thomas D. 1 > To: jlkarp@cox.net > Cc: clehr@rpv.com ; joelr@rpv.com ; Ara M > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:56 AM > Subject: RE: Further Questions re: Compromises by CCC/ME and the PC > Further questions on the below in bold. I invite both CCC/ME and > staff comment. Again I would like this e-mail chain included in late > correspondence. > -----Original Message----- • From: "jlkarp" > Sent 3/30/2010 7:44:53 AM > To: cc@rpv.com > Subject: LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC.doc > LIST OF COMPROMISES MADE BY CCC/ME AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN > FAVOR OF MARYMOUNT > CCC/ME: > • October 14, 2000 proactively set meeting with Marymount Board > of Trustees to explore ways the neighborhood could work with the > college > • We assured the college that remodeling of the present campus > with the addition of a library would not be contested TDL: I asked a > question about the library which has still not been answered. > CCC/ME's opposition to the SOC if sustained appears to mean that the > library could not be built. If built the library would generate > enough traffic to create the significant and unmitigated traffic > congestion at two intersections (or at least it would do so in > combination with one or more of the other buildings.) Thus if one > opposes the SOC, by definition one opposes a finding key to building > the library. Does CCC/ME oppose the library or not? LK Comment: The suggested linkage between support for the Library that precludes opposition to the SOC is not understood. The only theoretical connection is construction noise associated with the Library but there is far greater construction noise of different and more invasive character than building the Library. Mitigation is possible for Construction noise by condensing the time frame to 18-24 months as it was previously 198-24 months, including residence halls construction at that time. That noise can be mitigated not just for the Library, that is a stretch. Although above a 16' Code Height, does not, in our view, pose a significant unavoidable environmental impact that would require a SOC. The connection to Construction noise is absurd and specious. It, therefore does not, in our view, require a related Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC). Your view is that it does. That is the distinction. We support the Library as now approved and do not agree that to support the Library automatically involves an unmitigatable and significant environmental impact. You are of the opposite opinion. > • In 2002 we entered into the EIR the Alternative Plan of the > Living Campus & the Academic Campus because we believed it was the > win-win > for the college and the residents TDL: Can you show me a schematic that > shows how the facilities you want built on the San Pedro campus would > fit into the land there? LK Comment: The College has provided the City with a Property description of their parcel PT -H which is larger than the property previously acknowledged but that portion is included therein. It is 15.7 acres in size, not 11+ acres. We have previously provided a 2 copy of that property in the LA City Planning document forwarded to this City. The "layout" would place a joint -use Athletic Building on existing flat land astride the Rolling Hills Prep/Marymount property line depicted in LA Lot PT -H at the location of two completed fields (Football & Soccer) and large parking lot. This is the site of tennis courts now that sits between the two properties. Please see attached documents provided to the City by the College and related aerial views with an overlay of this parcel. The existing housing units to the southwest would be torn down and new residence facilities constructed there at a fraction of the cost compared with the $30 Million Dr. Brophy claimed for the RPV Residence Halls. Once these were finished, long -needed demolition of the current outdated townhouses at the existing site could commence replaced by an assortment of new facilities of any and all types placed in their stead. > PLANNING COMMISSION COMPROMISED THE NEIGHBORS BY: > • Approving 92,000 sq. ft college to grow to 210,000 sq. ft on > only 13 build able acres (high density) TDL: How does this density > compare to residential density in the neighborhood in terms of floor > area ratio (square footage of footprint and/or living space compared > to lot > size.) Is Marymount more dense or less dense than the surrounding area? LK Comment: According to Staff, the build able area of the site is 13, not 26 acres. That is 552,500 sq. ft. The Project envisions a total Sq. Ft. area of 151,090 sq. ft. without dorms (27%) and 210,254 sq ft. with dorms (38%). > • Approving the site as suitable in size and shape even though > construction near steep topography (opposite to the City Council 1990 > resolution) TDL: Is the construction near an extreme slope? If so, > isn't it true that CCC/ME opposes the grading necessary to remedy the > extreme slope condition which (in turn) was caused in the first place > by poor grading earlier? LK Comment: No, it is not true that CCC.ME opposes the grading necessary per the Recommendations of Associated Soils Engineering of May 10, 2005. That grading is required because of the less than required slope stability and involves a 1,125 wide swath across the entire slope below the existing campus. This is not opposed because the basic site is fragile and needs such stabilization measures for our own protection. Grading to implement this soil buttress shear key stabilization is not an option! It is required (as so stated by ASE May 19, 2009) whether or not Residence Halls are to be built, just slightly configured differently East of the Chapel What we strongly object to are two points regarding this mandatory grading of the shear key. 1.) It can only be displayed by a Geotechnical Map, Plates I and II with Cross Sections that illustrate the extent of such grading at these points. This information had not been provided to the Planning Commission until May 26, 2009. Although the shear key stabilization was accurately described in the DEIR Geology Section 5.6, it did not include the Geotechnical Map. There is confusion because the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans of this EIR are five in number, only two of which are Geotechnical, the other three are architectural and do not reveal the shear key and its extent. That is five such site plans in 44 months that this EIR has been underway since August 2005. The baseline Geotechnical Map of July 19, 2005 (ASE stamped) was not shown or included in any of the PC/City Council documents of this appeal. The most recent (#5) Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan of January 201 0 is an architectural version with no cross sections and merely references the May 10 2005 ASE recommendations, that must be complied with. All subsequent Phase Diagrams and Exhibits have not shown or called out this extensive grading feature. We are very concerned that the amount of such grading has not been revealed and represents upwards of 130,000 - 150,000 Cubic Yards beyond the Earthwork quantities that have been disclosed. The College has yet to comply with the City's requirement of September 18, 2009 to provide validated grading quantities. Dr. Brophy, in his October 6, 2009 letter to the City stated that all such issues raided had been provided. That has still not been received and the February 16, 2010 Staff report noted that such grading information would be supplied by the College at the Appeal. So far that has not happened. Why? > • Approving 8 -years of construction TDL: Would 3 > CCC/ME prefer 3 years of construction in 3 years to 3 years of > construction over 8 years? LK Comment: If construction is going to happen, it is preferable to complete this project expeditiously, However, the College had previously planned for an 18-24 month completion time (overlapping/parallel construction elements) when this project was much larger and included dorms. At the June Hearings in 2009, Dr. Brophy claimed the College needed 8 years to raise funds. Now they claim to have all the funds. So why not go back to the original promise of 18-24 months when the project is now much smaller without dorms. They can go back to 18-24 moths! > • Approving CUP for buildings up to 45, high (16' > by Code) TDL: are any of the findings necessary for this approval > improper? If, so which ones and why? LK Comment: Incomplete is a more appropriate term than "improper". Staff does not support the height and location of the Athletic Building and recommends it be lowered and moved off the slope by 10' in each aspect thus 1110 & 10". > • Accepting the bulk & mass of the new buildings as compatible > with surrounding homes TDL: Does CCC/ME think neighborhood > compatibility requirements apply to an institutional zone near to a residential zone? > If so, do they also apply to commercial zones? If so, how can any > commercial or institutional development be allowed in the city? No > such development could ever be compatible with a residential use. (Of > course perhaps a college could be if it had dorms.) LK Comment. No comment regarding commercial zone as it does not apply. In a residential zone the bulk and mass is obviously a factor and the existing bulk and mass is a reasonable starting point. The increase in bulk and mass is what is objected to because we already have a starting point. A further point is to the extent such increase in bulk and mass is actually seen or visible and that is quite substantial here, as noted. > • Extending hours of operation to 11 PM TDL: Isn't this > allowed by the current CUP? Aren't they currently open until 11 PM? > What complaints have there been? Why wouldn't a review of conditions > be sufficient to address any problems that might emerge? LK Comment: The hours of operation had not been documented or subjected to formal CUP conditions. We have shown that such late hours are not required for other major Colleges and Universities. They are inappropriate and should not now be institutionalized and incorporated. Past practice is also not well documented because if you go back to the prior 1990 and 1975 Resolutions/CUP's and planning hearings, the last class closed out before 61100 PM and only one such class was offered in the Fall Semester of 2009. > • Removing mandatory traffic & parking mitigation measures (now > all voluntary) TDL: What has been rendered voluntary? 120 spaces are > added, correct? LK Comment: Mandatory Mitigation Measures TR -5, TR -6 & TR -7 were removed in the Final. The College substituted a voluntary program instead. The College's voluntary program to date (Since summer 2009) - has been an abject failure with only 518 students still parking on the streets. Dr. Brophy testified that this program would eliminate such on street student parking it has not today and the actual Spring enrollment is now below 500. > • Accepting parking that was less than Code TDL: See my other > questions --as yet not fully answered. LK Comment> We do not accept that the Parking Code applies only to new additions. That would be a poor Code, and if true, it must be revised. It is noted that the City Council authorized and required additional parking above Code requirements for St. John Fisher, so to (effectively) contend that Code does not require more parking above existing and insufficient levels, is functionally wrong and unsustainable, in practice. > • Allowing applicant to reduce street parking rather than take > all parking off the City streets as promised to the neighbors TDL: > The only way to completely assure off street parking is to implement a > parking permit program. CCC/ME members have commented that on street parking > continues to occur even when Marymount has empty spaces in its lot. Does > CCC?ME want permit parking? LK Comment> That is a wrong premise. On Street parking can be controlled by other means as used near the Palos Verdes High School. This is by use of signeage that does not allow peak period parking on the street. permit Parking is not the sole or desired solution. > • Reducing street side set backs TDL : Is it a > reduction or is it allowing them to keep what they have? LK Comment: The current setback in some places is only 21. The College requested to be allowed 10' as a compromise but that is not for all spaces because there are greater setbacks now than 21, and all new parking along PVDE would otherwise be subject to the 25' setback standard. So it is a mix, not a grand fathered allowance. > • Removing the San Ramon Covenants TDL: Please > explain what this is. A true "covenant" is a private property > restriction that the city has no power to modify or remove. LK Comment. You are correct, strictly speaking. The term "covenant" here refers (loosely) to the CUP Conditions in the 1975 Resolution, of which the majority protected San Ramon Residents. > • Accepting 14,000 Sq .Ft of modular buildings, after EIR comment > period closed TDL: Did CCC/ME think the college would cease operation > during construction once buildings were torn down? If so, was that > thought based on anything the college said? If so, what? Is there a > copy of something showing the college was going to shut down rather > than have temporary facilities? Specifically what additional > environmental impacts does CCC/ME complain about as to the modulars? > If the EIR comment period closed does CCC/ME contend that it has been > deprived of an opportunity to provide substantive comments? If so, > what would those substantive comments have been and can the support > for them be provided now? LK Comment: No. The college has other options as well and did not even think their plan through until October 2006 when Dr. Brophy realized, after meeting with us, that the College could not function when certain facilities were dismantled and demolished. That is their problem, not ours. The point here is twofold; First, the placement location is disputed, and second the duration 8 years is unreasonable. That would be remedied with an 18-24 month project time frame. > • Removing the Affordable Housing TDL: Dorms would > be the best way to meet an affordable housing requirement. Should we > require Marymount to build dorms? More seriously, does CCC/ME contest > the college's representation that it is not creating 10 low wage jobs > and therefore is exempt from this requirement? LK Comment: Our review of your question to Staff on January 31, 2006 regarding applicability of this Low Cost housing requirement reveals that it was then based upon sq ft. of new space constructed. We contend that it has two elements, one of which is sq ft. of new space in 10,000 sq ft increments. You contend otherwise that it is uniquely a requirement when low wage jobs are created. > • Acting as Lead Agency & not stabilizing the project (per CEQA) > which lead to constant changes TDL: Please identify each change that > means that the project was "not stabilized" and please explain how the > change came about, whether CCC/ME supports it or opposes it, and why. LK Comment: It would take more time than available at this point to provide "each stage" documentation. However, when you understand that in 44 months of this current EIR processing you have had 5 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plans, that says a lot about an unstable baseline. 5 7 > • Approving excessive grading TDL: Why is the grading > "excessive?" Is there any professional engineer who says it is? Is > there any engineer who says that the grading poses any real risk to > stability in the area? If so, please provide me all details and a > report (with an engineer's stamp). LK Comment: The "excessive" as opposed to remedial grading involves the cosmetic grading near the Rose Garden. The City Geologist has testified that this is not necessary for stabilization of that area but is acceptable otherwise. That is the definition of excessive grading by RPV Code., > • Violating the General Plan & Municipal Code with excessive > variances & CUP TDL: Can CCC/ME tell me what specific sections of the > General Plan and Municipal Code have been violated and specifically > what variances do so and how? LK Comment: The spirit of the previous CUP CC Appeal was that the site was suitable in size and shape for the use intended because there was no construction on or near steep topography and the project complied with Development Standards for height and setbacks. While that is a close paraphrase, we can provide the actual language. It is in Section 2 of the 1990 Resolution. This current Revised Project virtually destroys that previous concept, piece by piece. Death by a thousand cuts, if you will. This is truly incremental ism at work against the General Plan purposes. I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter•has removed 1850 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message 6 APN: 7442001*** eek: None General Plan: Low Residential Pith M 03OB193 203 Lot PTAJA#� a �i"i12RPwlMt r+41i'is e City ofLos Angel 03/02(2007 PARCEL PROFILE RO Rtr Or PIN: Number. Area (Calculatedt Thonfas Brothers Asses= Pate Number. Tract Map reference: Lot A (.art Cut rence): Map Sheets DBI93 203 684,284.5 PAGE 7 RID JS PAGE 794 - GRID A6 RF, PES -193 - QRID J{ `P'AG9 7 , - MID A7 ePARTMON OF THE RANCH} LOS PALS VERDE D C D 2373 C F 41 MAP 228 PTH 28 ' 03OB1 3 '•8 -A _ ••,- r'4✓�n.`�sr may, a. , PA40P. VERDE* OR l .P,5 VERMES DR' " FFEY ST. City ofLosAngeles Department of g PIN Nuoftr. Area r .t r- r:. I ft -7i Map Rebrence: R Lot Arb ..Vt Chit Reference): Map Sheet jt i 193 2D3 # ,84.5 - RV J6 X94- GRID A 793 w QRJD J7 17-104 - MID A7 LOS PAS. CC23 None 26 • . 03OB193 OF THE RANCHO E VERDES F 41 MAP 228 711%R A I* 1KiV1 1=r n1%144n11gnft7 C'dy of Los Angeles .APN: 7442001*** mock: None Genet Playa: Lown Residential PIN #: 030/3/93 203 Lot: P`$" H Arb.- 26 • i 444 South Flower Street - Su+te 2400 Los Angeles, California 9007/2953 voice 213.234.0600 - fax 213.236.2700 BURKE. WJLLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP www.bwslaw.com Writer's Direct Dial: (213) 236-2702 Our File No: 04693-0001 ddavisebwsiew.com March 26, 2010 VIA E-MAIL- & OVERNIGHT MAIL Steve Wolowicz, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Re: Marymount College's Responses to the Appeal of the Planning Commission's Certification of the FEIR and Approval of the College's Campus Modernization Plan and Related Entitlements and to Staff's Recommendation to Modify Certain Approvals Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Councilmembers Campbell, Long, Misetich, and Stern: INTRODUCTION. Marymount Requests That The City Council: (1) Deny The Appeal; (2) Certify The FIER; (3) Re -Approve The Project With The BA Program; And (4) Reject Staff's Proposed Modifications. Marymount College has reviewed the staff report and recommendations for the City Council's meeting of March 30, 2010. The College concurs that the appeal should be denied and that the Final Environment Impact Report, including Appendices A -- D ("FEIR") for the College's campus modemization plan ("Project") should be certified, and that the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the Project should be upheld —though without the proposed staff modifications. The College's plans to modernize and improve its campus have been underway for over a decade and have been the subjected to intense scrutiny, including over a dozen public hearings in just the past few years. As a result of this rigorous process and the imposition of numerous conditions, the Project has been found to have no significant long- term, Project -related environmental impacts. This finding is a testament as to the willingness of the College to respond to the concerns of City officials and staff, as well as the community, by revising its plans, where feasible, to address all identified potential Project impacts. LA #4824-2644-3780 v2 0 0 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 2 Where changes to the College's master site plan have not been feasible or provided any substantial environmental benefits, the College has worked diligently with City staff and the City's consultants to provide the type of substantial evidence that supports such positions. This type of collaborative effort can readily be seen with respect to the City Council's request to study an alternative site plan that would have retained the general location of the existing athletic field. As described In the staff report for this meeting, and addressed in detail further below, Appendix D of the FEIR confirms the College's position that relocating the athletic field to the western portion of the campus is the environmental superior plan because it avoids introducing more intensive development such as parking Mots into this open space area and relocates the field further away from sensitive noise receptors. In addition, relocating the field to allow for the construction of fire lane serving existing and proposed facilities on the south side of the campus such as the new Library ensures adequate public safety protection. The College's preferred layout for the field and tennis courts on the west side of the campus remains its original site plan because it does not separate or impact the instructional and competitive use of the tennis courts as does Alternative No. D-2. Accordingly, the College requests that the site plan approved by the Planning Commission be adopted rather than Alternative No. D-2. In light of the findings in the FEIR and the well -supported and reasoned decisions of the City's Planning Commission, the College strongly opposes the City planner's attempt to re -introduce modifications to the design of the Athletic Building and the setback of the Eastern Parking Lot. These issues were thoroughly vetted during the proceedings before the Planning Commission and ultimately either incorporated as part of a more flexible condition of approval (Athletic Building design) or rejected (Eastern Parking Lot set back) by that body. Moreover, staff's post -Planning Commission approval suggestion to establish an arbitrary limit on certain outdoor activities (many of which are religious/worship ceremonies) is wholly unsupported and unwarranted, as is staff's brand new recommendation to cap the amount of grading at a level below what was analyzed in the FEIR simply because current preliminary grading estimates have been slightly reduced. For these and the additional reasons detailed below, the College requests that the City Council reapprove the Project without these new modifications. II. RESPONSES TO APPEAL ISSUES, The College generally concurs with the staff analysis and responses in the August 18, 2009 staff report' to the issues raised in the appeal filed on behalf of the Concerned ' Unless otherwise noted in this Section ll, all staff report references are to the report dated August 18, 2009. LA 44824.2644-3780 v2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 3 Citizens Coalition/Marymount Expansion, Inc. ("Appellant"),? As such, pending the submission of any tardy new claims by the Appellant at the hearing (which should be disfavored if not dismissed entirely given the length of time available in advance of the hearing),3 Marymount restates here its August 2009 supplemental responses to certain appeal issues. A. Animilant°s Issue I: Split Campus Altemetivg Under CEQA, a project alternative only requires consideration where it: (1) offers substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal; and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002, 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal, 3d 553, 555.) In P.C. Resolution No. 2009-27 ("CEQA Resolution'), the Planning Commission properly found that neither prong of this two-part test was met by the Split Campus Alternative. The alternative provides no substantial environmental advantage over the Project in terms of temporary construction noise or cumulative traffic impacts. "The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location," (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2)(A); emphasis added.) The staff report correctly notes that Sections 7.3 and 7.5 of the FOR find that the Split Campus Alternative offers no substantial environmental advantages with respect to the only two unmitigated impacts of the Project: (1) temporary construction noise and (2) a cumulative traffic impact at the PV Drive East/South intersection. 2 To the College's knowledge, no list of any members in such an organization has ever been publicly disclosed. Based on the available record, only two individuals, Lois Karp and James Gordon, have indicated in writing any official position or membership in such organization. ' CCC/ME apparently submitted dozens of pages documents in support of its appeal to City staff on March 23, 2010. These documents were not made available to Marymount until they were posted on the City's website on March 26, 2010 (the date of this letter). If necessary, the College reserves the right to provide a supplemental response. - Under CEQA, late comments such as these coming long after the close of the applicable comment periods are disfavored and the City Is not required to respond to them. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15088(a).) LA 44824-2644.3780 v2 �/ 0 k �:-) 60- BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 4 With respect to temporary construction noise, the Appellant's unsupported assertion that the Split Campus Alternative (Alternative 3) "does eliminate short-term construction noise with regard to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ° is patently false. According to the FEIR, the reason why Alternative 3 fails to effect any significant environmental advantage is primarily because the only major structure that would be eliminated (the Athletic Building) does not generate any significant construction noise impacts because it is generally located the farthest of any proposed structure from sensitive receptors. (FEIR at 5.5-17 to 18.) Rather, it is the construction of the new Library that, according to the FEIR, is largely responsible for the potentially significant temporary construction noise impacts because the facility Is located closest to residences. (ld.) Because the Library is unaffected by the Split Campus Alternative, the Planning Commission properly found a lack of substantial environmental advantage to Alternative 3. (See Mann v. Community Redevelopment Agency (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1143,1151 [alternative properly rejected due to lack of evidence demonstrating a substantial environmental benefit].) The Appellant's silence as to the traffic impacts associated with the Split Campus Alternative is understandable given that the FEIR finds that this proposal would generate around 2838 daily weekday trips at the PV North site alone (nearly 1000 more trips than the Project — see Appendix A at p.28) and would not reduce trips at the RPV campus by an amount sufficient to avoid the minor cumulative traffic impact associated with the Project at the PVD East/South intersection. (FEIR at 7-18 to 20,) In response to comments from the College, the FEIR also acknowledges that the new trip estimates for Altemative 3 may not accurately reflect the additional round trips between the PV North facility and the College's RPV campus that would be generated by. students attending physical education classes, participating in intramural and club sports and other student life activities, or using the student service facilities that would be relocated off -campus under Alternative 3. (FEIR at 12-864/121,2.33). The vast majority of these additional trips would likely come through the Miraleste area since these neighborhoods lie directly between the two facilities. Recommendation: The College concurs with the recommendation on p.15 of the staff report that: the City Council may wish to make a more expanded finding that Alternative 3 "would not substantially lessen the significant unavoidable environmental impacts of the Revised Project as to [short-term construction] noise or [cumulative] traffic impacts." 4 Appeal leiter dated July 24, 2009 ("Appeal Letter"), at p.3. LA 114824.2644-3780 v2 E;of.2 F-, 0 BURKE, WILLIAMS b SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 5 2. The Split Campus Alternative Is not feasible. a. The PV North site is outside the City's jurisdictional boundaries and obtaining the necessary discretionary approvals, if granted, would significantly delay the proposed project. The College fully endorses staffs explanation in support of the finding in the CEQA Resolution that the Split Campus Alternative is not feasible because the PV North facility is outside the City's jurisdictional boundaries and because "implementation of the Academic Campus portion of the project would not occur until the College first obtained entitlements from [the City of) Los Angeles for the Living Campus, which could delay implementation of the project." (CEQA Resolution at A-77.) These factors can properly form the basis of a finding of infeasibility. (See Af Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach (1993) 18 Cal.App-4th 729, 745.) b. The PV North site Is Inadequate in size. In the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the College provided largely undisputed evidence as to other factors recognized by the California Supreme Court and incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines that may be relied upon to support a finding of infeasibility as to a project alternative, Foremost, is the fact that the PV North site is inadequate in size to construct all of the facilities proposed in the Split Campus Altemative (i.e,, residence halls capable of housing 359 persons, a major athletic facility, student lounge, cafeteria, and resource center, athletic field, tennis courts, and parking). The RPV campus Is 24.57 acres and the PV North property is approximately 11A acres, less than half the area. Approximately 2-3 acres of these 11.4 acres are not useable due to slope constraints or the permanent road easement. The Appellant has shown misleading exhibits at previous hearings which purport to show the PV North site and the RPV campus as approximately the same size. In response, Marymount introduced as evidence a scaled overlay of just the recreational facilities in the Project super -imposed on the PV North site.e As demonstrated by this overlay, the recreational facilities alone would barely fit at the site after taking into account the property's configuration and development constraints. The Appellant has never offered any evidence in response to this site plan and essentially concedes the point on appeal with its suggestion that Marymount should "combine with Rolling Hills Prep in constructing a mutually beneficial sports facility'— presumably on the property of Rolling Hills Prep. (Appeal Letter at p.2.) This type of 'See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f (1) (site suitability is a factor that may be considered when addressing feasibility of alternatives]. a A copy of this overlay is attached. LA #4824.2644-3780 v2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 6 armchair planning only underscores the extent to which the Appellant fails to understand (or more likely acknowledge) the impractical and infeasible nature of the Split Campus Alternative. Recommendation: The City Council should make an additional finding in its CEQA Resolution that the Split Campus Alternative is not feasible because the RPV North site Is not adequate in size to accommodate all the proposed facilities. C. The alternative fails to meet the College's basic project objective to upgrade its on -campus athletic facilities, which are a critical part of its academic program. An additional factor in the feasibility analysis under CEQA that was not included in the CEQA Resolution is whether the Split Campus Alternative obtains most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c).) Marymount has steadfastly maintained that the Split Campus Alternative fails to meet most of the College's basic Project objectives. The analysis of Alternative 3 in the FEIR regrettably utilized the terms "Uving Campus" and "Academic Campus" in referring to the proposal to split up the College's facilities. These artificial designations fail to take into consideration the fact that the College's athletic facilities are a core component of its academic program. Marymount typically offers over 15 courses each semester in physical education and assigns 8 faculty members to provide such instruction along with coaching duties for club and intramural sports. The student life office, which also utilizes the College's recreational facilities, offers over 50 programs and events each semester. The College's counseling center and health center are also proposed to be located in the Athletic Building. (See FEIR § 12, Comment 121.2.33.) In short, the Athletic Building and the relocated athletic field and outdoor pool are not simply after-hours facilities, but rather, are integral components of the College's academic mission. The idea that the majority of the College's students (who do not live and never will live at the PV North site) would have to make one or more additional off -campus trips each day to take physical education classes, engage in intramural or student life activities, or seek counseling support was fatally flawed from the outset since one of the College's primary objectives in Its modernization plan is to provide enhanced educational and recreational facilities at its RPV campus -- not miles away in another city. Recommendation: The City Council should add an additional finding to its CEQA Resolution that the Split Campus Alternative falls to meet most of the basic project objectives. (See Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004). 121 Cal.App.41'.1490, 1499- 1500 (lead agency properly eliminated three alternatives even though they could potentially avoid or reduce significant impacts because they did not meet the applicant's objectives].) LA #4824-2644-3780 v2 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN; LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 7 In sum, the Planning Commission, consistent with the findings in the FEIR, properly rejected the Split Campus Alternative on the grounds that: (1) it offered no substantial environmental advantages; and (2) was not feasible. As noted above, the City Council may wish to further support these findings in its CEQA Resolution by including some of the additional evidence set forth in this letter. B. Appellant's IssMe II: Statement of Overrigin„g Considerations The staff report accurately reflects the multiple findings made by the Planning Commission in support of the adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations ("SOC"). In light of the minor nature of the two unmitigated impacts identified in the FEIR, any one of these findings provides a sufficient basis for the SOC,' and taken together they constitute substantial evidence of the significant benefits that will result from the Project. As noted in the response to Appellant's Issue I above, the only direct Project -related impact that could not be mitigated is temporary construction noise — much of it associated with the new Library due to its proximity to nearby residences along San Ramon. The Appellant takes a contradictory position by on one handing stating that it is not opposed to the new Library,8 and then attacking the findings In the SOC, which is primarily needed for the approval of this facility. With respect to the second unmitigated impact — cumulative traffic at the PV East/South intersection -- several points are worth noting. First, although the traffic analysis in the FEIR assigns 25% of the Project's estimated vehicle trips in the direction of this Intersection (FEIR, Exhibit 5.3-8), Marymount accounts for only 5% - 13% of the cumulative impacts at this intersection and will be paying its fair share contribution for the recommended mitigation improvements at the maximum level of 13%. Among the various projects identified in the Marymount FEiR that are adding cumulative traffic to this intersection is Terranea. According to the EIR for that project, 45% of the estimated 2800 daily trips generated by that project (i.e., 1260 trips) will travel between Hawthorne and the PV East/South intersection. (Long Point EIR at 5.12-3 and 4.) For reasons that are unclear to the College, the Long Point EIR did not find any cumulative traffic impact at this intersection and thus did not require any fair share payment from the hotel developer. This appears to be one of the primary reasons why there is no City fund or funding in place to construct the recommended improvements at this time. ' In particular, the College notes that the City Council received a report from its Director of Recreation and Parks at its meeting of June 2, 2008, indicating the great need in the community for the type of additional recreational facilities provided by the Project, 'Appeal Letter at p.10. LA 114824.2644.3780 Q 0 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLA Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 8 Marymount highlights these facts not in protest of the mitigation fee imposed on the College, but rather, simply to demonstrate that it is paying its fair share for identified impacts and the Project's many benefits are fully worthy of the City Council's adoption of a SOC for this single cumulative impact -- the mitigation of which is beyond the reasonable scope or control of the College. C. Apeellant's Issue IIi: Entitlement Findings The College concurs with staff's assessment that the Appellant has failed to meet its burden of providing any specific grounds or evidence to support the apparent blanket challenge to all of the approvals granted by the Planning Commission. As such, no further response beyond that contained in the staff report is necessary. D. Appellant's Issue IV: Adeauacy of FEIR All of the allegations in the Appeal with respect to alleged Inadequacies in the FEIR have been raised, responded to, and ultimately rejected on multiple occasions during the protracted FEIR certification process. The record is replete with substantial evidence that the FEIR is fully consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Except for the need to supplement two responses, the College is satisfied with staffs analysis on these issues absent any specific questions or concerns from the City Council. 1. Evening use of the campus. The Appellant states, with no evidentiary support, that permitting the Library, Student Union and Athletic Building to operate until 11 p,m. "creates unacceptable nighttime noise impacts." (Appeal Letter at p.6.) The Appellant has been the primary propagator of the 1 to 5" myth about the current campus hours of operation. In part, the College is pleased that the Appellant believes the campus is only open during such limited hours as it simply proves the point that there is no evidentiary basis for the Appellant's speculative allegation. As the record demonstrates, the College's campus facilities have for many years routinely been open at night until 10 or 11 p.m. for classes, study, and special programs and events. Not a single documented complaint arising from such operations exists In any City file, nor has specific, documented evidence of any frequent or significant nighttime noise impacts been presented during all the years of public hearings on the Project. In short, the Planning Commission properly agreed to allow the College to continue to operate its facilities in the evening based on its proven track record - not speculation. If isolated incidents of noise do occur, the College will respond appropriately as it has in the past, and the Conditions of Approval provide for the. review of the College's hours of operation if actual, as opposed to speculative, impacts arise. LA #4824-2644-3780 v2 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 9 2, Neighborhood Advisory Committee. With respect to the Appellant's complaint about the composition of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee established under Condition of Approval No. 138, the Committee provides for a representative from each of the five homeowner associations in close proximity to the College and two at -large representatives who live within a half mile of the College, one selected by the College and one selected by the City. In light of the undisclosed membership of the CCC/ME and uncertain future viability as an organization, as well as the multiple opportunities available for all residents who actually live near the College to participate as either an HOA representative or an at -large representative, the Planning Commission saw no need to include the Appellant as a permanent member of the Committee. The City Council should similarly decline this request. E. Aaggllant's Issue V: EIR Recirculation Recirculation of an EIR is only required: (1) if there is "significant" new information and the new information shows a new, "substantial Impact"; and (2) the public is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.) Appendix A of the Final EIR thoroughly reviewed the minor project revisions the College made to the Project after the release of Draft EIR, which revisions were primarily made to further reduce potential impacts identified in the Draft EIR, Appendix A concludes that: "The proposed project modifications do not introduce new substantial adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level." (Appendix A at p.63.) Moreover, the preparation and circulation of Appendix D of the Final EIR, which reanalyzed all aspects of the EIR with respect to the proposed BA Program and the proposed athletic field, gave members of the public an additional opportunity to review and comment on much of the document. It is telling that less than 26 people unaffiliated with Marymount provided any comments on Appendix D — and most of these were non - substantive in terms of commenting on any truly "new" Information. Moreover, as noted in the discussion in the March 30, 2010 staff report regarding "Grading Plans," the public has not been deprived of any information, rather, the "preliminary" grading plans continue to be refined to reduce the amount of grading and the height of certain retaining walls., In light of the Project's procedural history, recirculation of the Final EIR was not and is not required. F. App2l1ant's Issue VI: FEIR Revision to Remove Residence Halls Analysis In addition to the cogent points made by staff in response to this issue, Marymount notes with some irony that the Appellant's request to completely remove an aspect of the original project (the Residence Halls) from the analysis in the FEIR would in Itself violate CEQA. The Appellant continues to labor under the misconception that the certification of the FEIR is tantamount to the approval of an entitlement. It is not. As noted on the very first page of the FEIR, one of its primary purposes is to provide decision -makers and the public with specific information regarding the environmental effects associated with a proposed LA 94824.2644-3780 Q 0 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN. LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 10 40 project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15121.) A "project" for the purposes of the CEQA refers to the whole of a proposal — and not each governmental approval. (CEQA Guidelines §15378.) To not include a significant part of the originally proposed project in an EIR would be tantamount to "plecemealing" — a practice that is expressly prohibited under CEQA. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Califomia (1988) 47 Cal.3d 375 [EIR must include an analysis of potential future uses of campus].) While the College certainly understands the Appellant's desire to eliminate the portions of the FEIR that do not support its agenda (e.g., the i=EIR's finding of only a single potentially significant environmental impact associated with the development of the Residence Halls a purported change in visual character) this information cannot, as a matter of law, be removed from the FEIR. Conclusion on Appeal Issues For the reasons set forth above and in the August 18, 2009 staff report, Marymount fully supports the staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the Project. The College would further request that in light of the Appellant's long standing prejudice and animosity towards virtually all College activities and proposals, the City Council should consider enhancing some of the findings in the CEQA Resolution in order to discourage, and if needs be, better defend against, further meritless attacks. III. RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, The March 30, 2010 staff report lists four recommended modifications to the Project as approved by the Planning Commission. As detailed below, the Planning Commission considered and rejected the need for each of these modifications. The College respectfully requests that the City Council similarly dismiss these proposals. A. Athletic Building De$ian: The Planning Commission properly found that, as modified and conditioned, the Athletic Building will result in no significant visual character impacts or view impairments. During the Planning Commission proceedings, City planner Mihranian recommended the elimination of 10 feet from the south side of the Athletic Building (with a corresponding loss of approximately 2600 SF of space) and an inflexible, across the board building height reduction of 10 feet for the facility. The Planning Commission found no need to impose such measures based on substantial evidence.° 9 See Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 26, 2009 at pp. 12-13 and 18-20. LA #4824-2644-3780 v2 // bk C200 0 BURKE, WILUAMS 6 SORENSEN. LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 11 1. No visual character impacts. According to the August 18, 2009 staff report at p,29,10 the sole basis for the City planner's recommendation to reduce the entire footprint of the Athletic Building by 10 feet is because he believes the "Athletic Building adversely impacts the visual character of the southern slope as viewed from the south." Although recently adopted City Council Policy No. 42 allows for professional recommendations from staff, as a matter of law, it is well established that aesthetic determinations do not require special training or skill and are clearly within the purview of public officials. (See Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 572, 583.) Marymount directs the Council's attention to the following independent professional analysis on this very Issue in FIE R Appendix A: "The College proposes relocating the building footprint of the Athletic Building north by one -foot from the 906' elevation contour with no resulting reduction In the overall building square footage and reduction of the roof ridgeline by 10 feet along the north facing elevation with a flat roof and by four -feet along the southern elevation with a pitched roof. ,.. As shown on Exhibit 5, views of the Athletic Facility along the south -facing slope would be partially shielded and views of the south -facing slope and vegetation would continue to predominate. Therefore, the signif cant and unavoidable impact to visual character of the south facing slope associated with the Athletic Facility would no longer occur. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard" (Appendix A at p.18; emphasis added.) Although the City's planner concedes that the City's environmental consultants reached a different conclusion in the Draft EIR and Appendix A of the Final EIR, the staff report fails to specifically cite the location of these analyses or provide a, copy of the view simulation referenced in Appendix A. As is evident from this simulation (Exhibit 5), the Athletic Building adds a very minimal amount of observable development to this portion of the campus. Interestingly, staff offers no additional evidentlary support for this conclusory recommendation despite having many months to respond to the College's longstanding objection. Accordingly, the College restates its objections to the contention that the Athletic Building adversely impacts the visual character of the southern portion of the campus. tQ All staff report references in Section III.A. are to the August 18, 2009 staff report. [,A 04824-2644-3780 v2 ! 0 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 12 • The staff report does not specifically Identify any properties or view corridors that are allegedly affected nor does it reference any particular view simulation to support the alleged visual character impact. • The staff report falls to point out that of the handful of homes that conceivably might have a glimpse of this structure, all such homes are hundreds of feet away and the view of the campus to the north is not the primary view for any of these homes — all of which have ocean views directed towards the south. • There is no evidence in the record of any immediate neighbor who has either demonstrated an adversely impacted view or even objected to the view of just the Athletic Building. The staff report provides no evidence demonstrating that the proposed 10 -foot reduction in the footprint of the Athletic Building would even be perceptible to the unidentified views from the unidentified homes or unidentified view corridors alleged to be adversely impacted. • The staff report fails to analyze or take into consideration the fact that the proposed structure will have over 10 acres of open space immediately below it — far greater than virtually every other two or three-story residential or nonresidential structure approved in recent years by the City, • The staff report fails to disclose that reducing the building envelop by 10 -feet will eliminate over 2600 square feet of area and result In the loss of office space, an exercise room, and the proposed snack bar. • The staff report fails to disclose that the College considered but could not move the Athletic Building back further because it would interfere with the adjacent maintenance facility and delivery area. • Staffs suggestion at p. 29 that such a set -back is also needed. because the "approved plantings can be trimmed or removed in the future" thus "resulting in an unintended consequence to the slope's visual character" is also unpersuasive. Such changes to the approved landscape plan would violate the CUP and can be readily enforced by the City. More to the point, any additional plantings that are added to the southern portion of campus will represent an improvement in visual character over the current unimproved condition of this open space area. In sum, the Planning Commission considered all these facts at its meeting of May 26, 2009, when it voted to approve the Athletic Building with a one -foot set back and no reduction in the overall footprint as requested by the College. The City. Council should affirm that decision. LA 94824-2644-3780 Q • 0 BURKE. WfLLfAMS & SORENSEN. LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 13 2. No view Impairments. During the period that the Project silhouettes were in place (December/January 2007/8), the property owner at 3302 Narino Drive contacted City staff regarding a potential view impairment by the Athletic Building. Views from this property had not been studied in the Draft EIR because the views at that time were obstructed by vegetation, which the current owner subsequently removed. This potential issue and the photographs attached to the August 18, 2009 staff report at pp. 60-61 were not disclosed to the College until the Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 2008 — nearly a year later. Upon review of the photographs, the College's architect promptly recommended modifying the pitched roof to a flat roof over the northern portion of the structure thereby reducing the building height by 10 -feet in this area and lowering the roof pitch by 4 -feet over the entry area at the southern portion of the structure, These modifications can be seen in the images on pages 62-63 of the staff report. Professional view simulations were also prepared (see pp. 64 and 66 of the staff report) and confirmed that these modifications would be sufficient to avoid any view impairment from this property. These view simulations were also reviewed by the City's independent environmental consultants as part of the updated analysis in Appendix A. The City's professional consultants found that the College's proposed modifications to the roofline and building height would not result in any significant view impacts to properties to the north of the campus, including the residence located at 3302 Narino Drive, and that the "Existing views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina would continue to predominate." (Appendix A at pp.20-22.)" Not only does the Athletic Building, as revised and approved, not adversely impact views from 3302 Narino Drive, but the College's proposed removal of existing buildings would, on the whole, "result in less view obstruction." (Appendix A at p.20.) During the proceedings before the Planning Commission, as now, it was evident that the College and City staff shared the same goal of avoiding any view impairment to this property, and the real issue was simply the best way to achieve such result. From the College's perspective, an across the board building height reduction of 10 -feet would, similar to a 10 -foot building envelop reduction, significantly impact the Intended use of the structure. Accordingly, the College proposed, and the Planning Commission accepted, the following " In the staff report at p. 29, the City's planner claims that the structure "would remain within the vow_ shed from this property." The College does not believe that the City's view preservation regulations protect entire "view sheds" (as opposed to a specific view of Catalina Island), and staff offers no evidence or comparative view simulation to support what appears to be little more than an assumption that the structure "may encroach in the 2 -degree down -arc view." (August 18, 2009 staff report at p.29; emphasis added.) GA #4824-2644-3780 v2 / V '0� C;? S,) BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 14 condition of approval to ensure that the mutual goal of no significant view impairment carried through to project construction: 53) Prior to the plan check submittal of the Athletic Building, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement shall determine that the revised Athletic Building, as proposed and accepted by the Planning Commission at its May 26, 2009 meeting, is designed so that there is no significant view impairment of Catalina Island from the viewing area of the property located at 3302 Narino Drive. To accomplish this, the applicant shall install a certified silhouette for review by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. In the event the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement determines that a significant view impairment of Catalina Island exists with the redesigned Athletic Building, the Planning Commission shag review and reconsider the design of the Athletic Building to reduce the view impairment at a duly notice public hearing. In sum, based upon the evidence and findings in Appendix A, the Planning Commission had ample grounds to approve the Athletic Building, with only an additional one - foot set back and with the redesigned roofiine and lowering of the building as proposed by the College, because such modifications will not result in any significant or adverse visual character impacts or view impairments. Accordingly, the College requests that the City Council re -approve the Athletic Building without further modification, B. Eastern Parking Lot: The Planning Commission properly approved the Eastern Parking Lot with a setback of 00 feet from the nearest property line and provision of nearly 10,000 SF of open space given that the FEIR found no impacts with a 50 -foot set back. The City planner's recommendation of a set back for the proposed Eastern Parking Lot that is 261 TIMES beyond what the City's Development Code requires based on his subjective aesthetic preference is nothing more than an unsupported mitigation measure that was properly rejected by the Planning Commission as excessive and unwarranted.' (The College's plan is at p.73 and the City planner's redesign is at p. 72, respectively, of the August 18, 2009 staff report.) Although not disclosed to the City Council in the staff report, this recommendation is also wholly at odds with the findings of the City's independent professional consultants. Here again, the College directs the City Council to the applicable findings in the FEIR. The Draft 12 See Planning Commission Minutes of May 26, 2009 at pp. 13 and 20-21. LA #4824-2644-3780 Q BURKE, WILLIAMS b SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 15 EIR concluded that the Eastern Parking Lot location with a set back of 50 feet and additional landscaping would have no significant view impacts on adjacent properties, including the residence located at 2750 San Ramon Drive, (FEIR at 5.2-48.) Although the residence at 2750 San Ramon Drive is currently adjacent to the tennis courts that are proposed for relocation, when the property owner (Harris) voiced concerns regarding the proximately of this parking area following the release of the Draft EIR, the College agreed to add 30 more feet of setback (from the permitted side yard setback of zero feet). Not surprisingly, when the City's environmental consultants updated the FEIR to review the final Project revisions, the consultants concluded in Appendix A that the Eastern Park Lot would still have no significant impact: "impacts would remain less than significant in this regard." (Appendix A at p.23.) Rather than accept this independent professional analysis, the City's planner attempts to reinstate Ills desire to see a football field sized set back of 261 feet solely because "the parking lot will be readily visible from the deck and spa located at ... 2750 San Ramon...." (Staff report at p.29; emphasis added. )13 This concept of "prohibited visibility" is not sanctioned by the City's Code or applicable law for the obvious reason that under such a standard, all future development in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would be prohibited because there are likely no sites in the City that would allow for a set back 261 times greater than Code because it might be "readily visible" from a single adjacent property. This staff suggestion is all the more untenable because the proposed improvement is not even a structure, but rather, ground level surface parking. Marymount restates here the multiple grounds upon which this proposed redesign of the Eastern Parking Lot should be rejected: • The staff redesign would create an excessive buffer that falls to meet the constitutional standard of rough proportionality for a mitigation measure and would result In an unlawful exaction. Under CEQA, "A lead agency for a project has authority to require feasible changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid "Although the staff report references alleged potential "noise, odor and operation" impacts, staff appears to have abandoned this assertion after the Planning Commission pointed out that all other adjacent properties along San Ramon have had parking areas adjacent to their homes for decades and have reported no such significant impacts. in addition, the staff report fails to note that the approved CUP attempts to minimize such potential impacts by requiring that the lower terrace of the approved Eastern Parking Lot be closed between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. (See Condition of Approval No.160.) LA #4824-2644.3780 v2 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 16 significant effects on the environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by case law (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994) 512 U. S. 374, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854.). (CEQA Guidelines § 15041(a); emphasis added.) Here, the City's own CEQA document finds no significant view impacts to these adjacent properties under the College's original proposal of a 50 -foot* set back, and even less potential for, such impacts under the revised proposal to increase the buffer to over 80 feet. As such, the staff proposal to increase the buffer by three -fold clearly fails to meet the constitutional standard of "rough proportionality." As implied in the staff report, the City's planner apparently believes (without citation to any authority) that the City Council is somehow not subject to the rough proportionality standard because It is making CUP findings. Not so. This is a constitutional standard that applies in all land use matters — not just CEQA documents. (See for example, Twain Harte Associates, Ltd. v. County of Tuolumne (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 71, 83 `a land use regulation has "gone too far" when it is arbitrary or unreasonable).) During the Planning Commission hearings and repeated here on appeal, the City's planner fails to note what potential uses the City would allow on the nearly 28,000 square feet of open space adjacent to the subject residences that would be created under the staff - initiated revision, It is doubtful that staff or the College's neighbors would support the creation of a passive use area the size of two residential lots. Accordingly, while disguised as a condition, acceptance of the staff proposal would result in a regulatory appropriation since the resulting "open space" buffer area would be rendered essentially unusable. Finally, the College must point out the inconsistency here with respect to staff s repeated statements of preference for the College to limit its development to the relatively flat portions of the campus. Yet here, when the College proposes such very development, it is rejected. Apparently, what staff has Ih mind is for the College to place new development only on the flat portions of the campus that are not visible from adjacent properties -- which areas, of course, do not exist. • The staff redesign would eliminate a significant passive use area In the campus core and places it an undesirable area for both the College and Its neighbors. If the Council compares the plans at pages 72 and 73 of the August 18, 2009 staff report, it is readily apparent that this once -rejected staff proposal would reduce the existing. 23,042 square feet of open space in the core of the campus and proximate to the library and LA #4824-2644-3780 v2 i7 � a0, 0 0 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 17 . Faculty Building under the College's plans to a sliver of approximately 6,594 square feet. The bulk of such open space would be shifted under the staff redesign to the easterly comer of the campus to create 27,940 square feet of open space. As noted above, given the relatively flat terrain, this sizable area would become a very attractive gathering location for students. Complaints would invariably arise and in all likelihood City staff, consistent with past recommendations, would likely seek to impose use restrictions that would render the space generally unusable. The College accepts the creation of a 9,575 square foot open space buffer area under the Project, but the nearly 28,000 square foot buffer area proposed by staff goes "too far" and should be rejected by the Council in order to avoid creating an unlawful exaction. • The staff redesign places development closer to the south slope. The staff report fails to point out that the redesigned parking lot would go all the way to the edge of the existing slope and would likely require additional grading and fill to support this expansion of development onto the slope area, which staff has sought to avoid in all other aspects of the project. (See site plan at p.72.) The proposed placement of vehicles along the slope would also be visible from Palos Verdes Drive East and possibly from some of residential properties facing in the easterly direction of the campus. • The staff redesign impedes access to the rose garden. The staff report fails to disclose that this staff recommendation would eliminate direct access to the proposed rose garden from the Library, nor does it mention that the 90 -foot shift in alignment would also push the pathway over the slope, thereby requiring additional grading and fill. • The staff redesign results in a less desirable circulation pattern. The staff proposal would create more stacked or back-to-back parking, which takes longer to get in and out of and thus disrupts circulation. In sum, the Planning Commission approved modifications to the Eastern Parking Lot that reflect both sound design and reasonable mitigation. The increased setback to parking in the lower terrace area is more than 80 feet, it leaves an overall buffer area of nearly 10,000 square feet, and does not impair the existing ocean view from the residence at 2750 San Ramon Drive. Moreover, under Condition of Approval No. 171, the 42 -inch high vegetation seen in the visual simulation (staff report at p.70) can be increased up to 7 -feet in height, which will substantially screen much of the lower parking lot from view. For these LA 44824-2644-3780 v2 0 0 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 18 reasons, the City Council should also reject the staff proposal and re -affirm the design of the Eastern Parking Lot as approved by the Planning Commission. C. Athletic Field Location: The College concurs with the recommendation to relocate the Athletic Field and Tennis Courts to the western portion of campus, but prefers the original site plan design. The March 30, 2010 staff report provides a two-page summary of the analysis and findings in Appendix D with respect to the athletic field Alternative No. D-1 (retain in current location) and Alternative No. D-2 (move field approx. 60 feet to the east from the original plan and shift two tennis courts to the western side of the field). The staff report correctly notes that Alternative No. D-1 was found to be infeasible because it would impede required fire access to existing and proposed academic facilities, (Appendix D at 8-5 and 8-6.) The staff report also properly points out that Alternative No. D-1 was also found to create at least two significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with respect to aesthetics (long-term visual character Impact arising from development of additional parking in western portion of the campus — Appendix D at 3.2-2) and long-term noise Impacts due to proximity to the new Library (Appendix D at 8-5 [revising page 3,6-61). As the College pointed out In its letter of February 12, 2010, the City is prohibited from adopting this alternative under CEQA because it neither mitigates nor avoids significant effects on the environment. (See Public Resources Code § 21002,1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15126,6.) Accordingly, the College concurs with staff's recommendation that the athletic field not be retained in its current location, On the other hand, the staff report contains no analysis or any evidence to support staffs position that Alternative No. D-2 is the "preferred design for the site layout of the athletic field and tennis courts." Appendix A finds that the use of retractable netting and other fencing and landscaping features as part of the original site plan would mitigate the potential for balls used in athletic activities to escape the confines of the campus. Appendix D reaches the same conclusion with respect to Alternative No. D-2. Given the comparable results, the College prefers its original site plan for the athletic field since it does not separate or Impact the instructional and competitive use of the tennis courts as. does Alternative No. D-2. Accordingly, the College requests that the City Council approve the original layout for the athletic field and tennis courts, which was endorsed by the Planning Commission, IV, RESPONSES TO STAFF PROPOSED CUP REVISIONS. City staff, Without any prior consultation with the College, is proposing additional revisions to the Conditions of Approval adopted by the Planning Commission, The College had submitted to City staff some proposed revisions to the Conditions of Approval to reflect final revisions to the Project such as the BA Program as well as some minor clarifications. Many of these suggestions were incorporated by staff in their revised Conditions of Approval. LA 04824-2644-3780 v2 Iq 4 Cl? ? 0 0 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2090 Page 19 Those comments not incorporated but still desired by the College are listed in Section V. With respect to staffs revised conditions, the College has several strenuous objections. Condition No. 67, Proposed reduction in permitted maximum grading amounts. As stated in the March 30, 2010 staff report under the heading "Grading Plans," the College recently submitted updated preliminary grading plans prepared by its registered engineer. The staff report goes on to note "that grading plans reviewed in the planning state are typically considered a preliminary plan that are commonly updated or refined to reflect precise grades in the plan check stage prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit by Building and Safety." Indeed, the referenced plans contain the following notation from the engineer: "Due to the preliminary nature of these plans, quantities may vary and proposed elevations may require adjustments to compensate for subsidence and losses die to clearing and grubbing operations. During final grading plan preparation, parking lot grades will be held at or near the proposed elevations shown hereon, and soccer field and tennis court elevations will be varied to balance the on-site." Despite staffs own recognition of the preliminary nature of these plans, and in an apparent effort to appease the Appellant, staff is proposing a mandatory reduction of approximately 6,000 cubic yards in grading. This revision is wholly unnecessary. First, as demonstrated in Section 5.6 (Geology and Soils) of FBIR and the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program, the overall amount of Project grading is not particularly significant since the Project proposes a balanced condition (i.e., balanced cut and fill). More to the point, the College already has a strong economic reason to reduce grading, since it saves money. The primary reason for the College's objection to this revised condition is timing. The majority of grading is going to occur during the summer construction periods in Phase 1. if the College encounters an unforeseen site condition and the actual grading will exceed the currently permitted 0023% deviation (i.e. 200 CY/84,800 CY) — all work must stop and the City Council would have to conduct a public hearing to allow even 250 cubic yards of additional grading. This would be a waste of the City Council's time and could cost the College tens of thousands of dollars in delay damages. In short, the College should not be penalized for attempting to reduce the amount of grading. The existing maximum permitted limits in Condition No. 67 create no impacts and should be left alone. Condition No. 136 Proposed cap on outdoor events, including religious services. In the staff report of September 12, 2009, staff first proposed a condition to establish a cap on the number of outdoor events that could take place on campus using amplified sound pursuant to a special use permit as permitted under the current CUP. Staff offered no LA 44824-2644.3780 v2 BURKE. WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 20 explanation then or now as to the need for such a cap other than its apparent recognition there was no cap. This is simply another example of an unsupported and unwarranted intrusion on campus operations by City staff. Attached are lists of the applicable outdoor events that the College sought and obtained approval for under a Special Use Permit during 09/10 and 08/09 academic year. All of these events are held during the day, and typically in the middle of the day. The need to hold these event outdoors is often due to indoor space limitations. And the amplified sound, is more often than not, simply a microphone so that a speaker can be heard. The City Council will not find a single, verifiable, written compliant In the record that any of these activities created a significant impact, or caused levels of sound at the College's property lines that exceeded any applicable City Code requirements. Although the Special Use Permit process creates an added burden on the College, Marymount has lived with this cumbersome administrative process for two decades, in part, because it is administrative and changes can be made relatively promptly. This proposed arbitrary cap on events, however, would require a discretionary approval and hearing to amend. For example, the College is currently approved for 24 outdoor events this year. If it wanted to hold a Easter service, and this condition was in place, the CUP would need to be revised. Such a prior restraint on protected religious expression and association would be as unconstitutional as it is unnecessary. The proposed cap on campus outdoor events, including religious services, should be deleted. Conditions Nos. 140,142 and 146: Inaccurate description of degree programs. In Conditions Nos. 140, 142, and 145, City staff has incorrectly described the College's degree programs. As described in the FEIR and on page 4 in the March 30, 2010 staff report, the College currently offers Associates 3n Arts and Sciences degrees, and in collaboration with Webster College, it offers Bachelors in Arts and Sciences degrees and Masters Degrees. The proposed staff revisions omit references to the Associates In Sciences, Bachelors in Sciences, and Masters Degrees. This inadvertent mistake should be corrected and the College will be providing revised language. V. REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF COLLEGE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL As noted above, many of the Colleges suggested revisions have been incorporated by staff into their revised Conditions of Approval. Those that were left out and which the College believes should be adopted by the City Council are listed below. LA 84824-2644.3780 v2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLA Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 21 Condition No. 9S: Expand the outer limits of the City Council's review period for each Project phase from six months to twelve months. The College believes that in some instances six months may be too soon to assess the operation of certain facilities. Twelve months would provide the City Council with greater flexibility in terms of scheduling the review while not precluding an early review. "No later than twely 12 months after the completion of each of the three Construction Phases described herein..." Condition No. 60(a). Allow two full summer periods to complete Phase One. The completion date for the Phase One improvements must incorporate at least two summer periods since this is the only time these construction activities can occur. This minor change would not affect the overall 8 -year phased build -out. "The planning entitlements, including grading and building permits, for all construction described under Phase One shall remain valid and the construction thereof shall be Completed no later than Septemb2r 30th of the year that is two years from the date the decision becomes final. New Condition: Reduce the College's financial obligation under TR -2 for the signalization of the Miraleste intersection to a fair share payment. Mitigation Measure TR -2 requires the College to signalize the Miraleste/PVD South intersection subject to eligibility "in the future for partial reimbursement from future projects that result in impacts on this intersection." Such purported reimbursement is a fiction since it is highly unlikely that there will be significant new development in this built -out area, and once the intersection is signalized, It is doubtful that even a project far larger than Marymount's master plan would have much of an impact, In recognition of the fact that a signal is warranted under existing conditions (LOS 1=), the City has included this Improvement as part of its Capital Improvement Program. Accordingly, the College requests that the City modify the financial aspects of this mitigation measure to a proportionate share payment similar to that imposed underTR-8 for the PVD East/PVD South intersection. 14 14 Due to time constraints arising from the late posting of the staff report and attachments, proposed language will be sent separately on Monday. LA #4824.2644.3780 v2 -6 -/, ,2 4P 0 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP Marymount College Comments City Council Meeting of March 30, 2010 Page 22 In closing, the College expresses its appreciation to the City Council for their consideration of the Issues raised in this letter, and to the Council's and staffs efforts in bringing this process to a long-awaited conclusion. Sincerely, BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP IMAY" DONALD M. DAVIS Attachments. PV North Site plan overlay and list of Campus Outdoor Events cc: (Via E -Mail only) Dr. Michael Brophy Michael Laughlin, Psomas Joel Rojas, Community Development Director Ara M11hrananian, Principal Planner Carol Lynch, City Attorney Dave Snow, Assistant City Attorney LA #4824-2644-3780 v2 C � � � r?-'e,..,'4!'s$.���`�, �'rt' �� � �st,l''e�$, �:ae � .n Sa k4.�.'t►ti "�x j k ���ej y��w �..,'c..".: x,-,+ t = I . Fv�o V.41 C � � � r?-'e,..,'4!'s$.���`�, �'rt' �� � �st,l''e�$, �:ae � .n Sa k4.�.'t►ti "�x j k ���ej y��w �..,'c..".: x,-,+ MARYMOUNT COLLEGE 2009-10 SPECIAL USE PERMIT DATE EVENT TIME PERMIT SOUGHT FOR LOCATION 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle 8/27/09 (Thurs.) Convocation Ceremony 5:00 —6:00 Speakers, music - amplified sound Cecilia Quad 12:00-2:00 and Activities Cecilia Quad 8/28/09 (Fri.) Student/Faculty Barbecue 5:00 — 8:00 Speakers, music — amplified sound Cecilia Quad 8/29/09 (Sat.) Service Day Event 10:00 —2:00 Amplified sound Chapel Circle 9/3/09 (Thurs.) Club Day/Volunteer Fair 12:00 —1:30 Live or recorded music—amplified Chapel Circle C n Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle Amplified sound 9/4/09 (Fri.) Pool Party 12:00-5-00 Live or recorded music — amplified Poolside \� 9/9/09 (Weds.) Commuter Club Kick -Off 4:00-5:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Pool IN, 9/16/09 (Weds.) Mass of the Holy Spirit 12:00 —1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified View Lawn 9/22!09 (Tues.) College Fair 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle Amplified sound 10/3/09 (Sat.) Family Weekend 12:00-2:00 Live or recorded music Cecilia Quad during lunch, speakers 10/6/09 (Tues.) International Festival 12:00-2:00 Live or recorded music —amplified Chapel Circle Amplified sound 10/27/09 (Tues.) Alcohol Awareness Fair 12:00 —1:30 Amplified sound Chapel Circle 11/2/09 (Mon.) Dia De Los Muertos 12:00 —1:00 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle 9/11/2009 C:\Documents and Settings\Student Development\Special Use Permit Page 2 2009-10 Marymount College Special Use Permit 11/3/09 (Tues.) Fall Festival 11:00 —2.00 11/11/09 (Weds.) Veteran's Day Observance 219/10 (Tues.) Chinese New Year 11:00-12:00 2/11/10 (Thum)100 Days to Graduation 11:00-2:00 4/22/10 (Thurs.) Earth Day Celebration 11:00-2:00 N 4/23110 (Fri.) Pool Party 12:00— 5:00 4/27/10 (Tues.) . Academic Integrity Fair 12:00-1:30 p ` 4/29/10 (Thurs.) Basketball Championship 11:00-2:00 ><J 5/5/10 (Weds.) Cinco de Mayo 2:00-5:00 5/22/10 (Sat.) Graduation & 11:00-6:00 Related Events +2 possible dates Picnic, poolside party 12:00 —1:00 or Quad to be determined or community meeting 12:30 —1:30 9/11/2009 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle Amplified sound 4:00-5:00 Live or recorded music— amplified Chapel Circle Amplified sound Amplified sound Chapel Circle Amplified sound Chapel Circle Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle Amplified sound Live or recorded music — amplified Poolside Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle Amplified Sound Live or recorded music — amplified Basketball Court Amplified Sound Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle Amplified Sound Music, speakers -amplified sound Castle Field Tent Castle Field Live or recorded music; speaker or p.a. system Chapel Circle, Cecilia Poolside E U MARYMOUNT COLLEGE 2008-09 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 9/11/2009 CADocuments and Settings\Student DevelopmenASpecial Use Permit r� L is DATE EVENT TIME PERMIT SOUGHT FOR LOCATION 8/22/08 Convocation 10:00-11:15 Speakers, music - amplified sound Cecilia Quad (Fri-) Welcome Lunch 11:45-1:00 Speakers, music - amplified sound Chapel Circle Student/Faculty Barbecue 5:00-7:00 Speakers, music - amplified sound Castle Field 8126/08 Commuter Welcome Lunch 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle (Tues.) 9/3/08 Mass of the Holy Spirit 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified View Lawn (Weds.) 9/4/08 Club Day/Volunteer Fair 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle (Thurs.) Amplified Sound 9/6/08 ASMC Hawaiian Luau 1:00-4:00 Live or recorded music — amplified Poolside (Sat.) Party 9/23/08 College Fair 11:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle (Tues.) Amplified Sound np 10/14/08 Alcohol Awareness Fair 12.00-1:30 Amplified Sound Chapel Circle (Tues.) 10/21/08 ASMC Dodge Ball 12:00-1:30 Amplified Sound Basketball Court (Tues.) Tournament 10/25/08 Family Weekend 12:00-2:00 Live or recorded music — amplified Cecilia Quad (Sat.) Amplified Sound 9/11/2009 CADocuments and Settings\Student DevelopmenASpecial Use Permit r� L is 9/11!2009 Page 2 2007-08 Marymount College Special Use Permit 11/6/08 Business Class Fair 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle (Thurs.) 11/11/08 Veteran's Day Observance 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle (Tues.) Amplified Sound 2/5/09 Black History Month 12:00 —1:30 Local radio station or live music Chapel Circle (Thurs.) Kick -Off 2/10/09 Leadership Retreat 12:00 —1:30 Local radio station or live music Chapel Circle (Tues.) 4/22/09 Earth Day Celebration 11:45-1:15 Live or recorded music — amplified Cecilia Quad (Weds.) Amplified Sound 4/28/09 Academic Integrity Fair 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Chapel Circle (Tues.) Amplified Sound 4/30/09 Basketball Championship 12:00 —1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Basketball Court (Thurs.) Amplified Sound Q l 5/5/09 Student Worker 12:00-1:30 Live or recorded music — amplified Poolside (Tues.) Appreciation Day 5/23/09 Graduation & 11:00-6:00 Music, speakers -amplified sound Castle Field Related Events Tent Castle Field Music -amplified sound, canopies Cecilia Quad +2 possible dates to be determined 12:00 —1:00 or Live or recorded music; Chapel Circle, Cecilia Quad for picnic, poolside party or 12.30-1:30 speaker or p.a. system Poolside community meeting 9/11!2009 March 30, 2010 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: We moved into our home at 3416 Corinna Drive in 2001. Our back yard looks right down on the area where Marymount wants to move their soccer field. This was to be our retirement home. We were not made aware of the Marymount expansion plans when we bought our house. We are concerned about unnecessarily dragging out the dust, trucks and noise of construction for eight years. They should be able to do the work in a much shorter time span. Besides the damage to our quality of life, no one in this area will be able to sell their house for the next eight years. Who would buy here? Everything will be put on hold. We are concerned about the variance allowing the huge shortage of parking spaces. The surrounding neighborhood is expected to absorb over 400 spaces. The huge athletic building, with the public events that will undoubtedly be held there, plus the opening up of the soccer field to AYSO games, will bring in much traffic to our twisting winding streets. Palos Verdes Drive East can't handle that kind of traffic. The desire to move the athletic field, falsely claiming it isn't regulation size, is nothing more than a move to make room for the dorms. The wish to grade that slope is also designed to make room for the dorms. The dorms would cause a density of housing in a single family residential neighborhood that is unreasonable. There is no reason Marymount can't have their student housing, student union, health services, etc all at their existing off campus housing site. However, all of these concerns pale in light of the geological impacts of this expansion. With the Tarapaca slide just around the corner, the San Ramon canyon slide just a little further on, and the Portuguese Bend slide in the other direction, it should be obvious that this slope is unstable. The EIR doesn't adequately consider the geologists report. We can't believe the City is even considering allowing that slope to be graded, much less built on. The geologist slope stability analysis indicates the south slope demonstrates an inadequate factor of safety against failure. jThe mitigation measures suggested controled watering, but what happens when we have another big rainy season such as the one experienced this past winter? Now Marymount is trying to do an end run around the residents and the City Council by taking this to a vote of the City. They have already started flooding the mail with glossy brochures and DVD's about how wonderful the 4 year school is for the City and how they really need the dorms at that location. They are trying to paint the residents as disgruntled NIMBY's. In truth, the entire city should be opposed to the construction of these dorms. The potential lawsuits if the hill slides will bankrupt the City. Everyone in the City would oppose this expansion if they understood the risks the City is taking with bankruptcy. Please approve the Alternative Plan of a Living and Academic Campus. Ronald and Patricia Barrett 3416 Corinna Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 /,0/— / e:::� L Aak" . RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: MARCH 29, 2010 SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 30, 2010 City Council meeting: Item No. Description of Material 2 Memorandum from Staff; Answers to questions posed by Mayor Pro Tem Long; Emails from the following: Vic Quirarte, Ken Dyda, Russ & Sandra Long; Juliet Swoboda; Sylvi Underwood; M.A. & G.E. Mevers; Greg & Jennifer Eisenreich; Lily Wang; B.K.; Dr. Komoc; Mark Wells; and David Lebental Respectfully submitted, 1 moo' ey ° // // Carla Morreale CITYOF RANCHO P' ! TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ARA MIHRANIAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE: MARCH 26, 2010 SUBJECT: MARYMOUNT COLLEGE FACILITIES EXPANSION PROJECT (ZON2003-00317) - CEQA AND PLANNING ENTITLEMENT RESOLUTIONS UPDATE According to the March 30th City Council Staff Report, the CEQA and Planning Entitlement resolutions were going to be transmitted to the City Council prior to the March 30th meeting. The City Attorney, who is preparing the resolutions, has determined that since the Council has not be given the opportunity to provide Staff with direction on the Staff recommendations and the merits of the appeal, it would be premature for Staff to prepare and release resolutions at this time. As such, based on Council direction at the March 30th meeting, Staff will prepare the appropriate resolutions for Council consideration at its regular scheduled April 6th meeting. The resolutions will be transmitted to the Council and made available to the public no later than Friday, April 2, 2010. N Page 1 of 4 Carla Morreale From: Ara M [aram@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 5:21 PM To: 'Long, Tom' Cc: 'Joel Rojas; 'Ara M; 'Carol W. Lynch; carlam@rpv.com; 'Carolyn Lehr; 'David Snow; 'Teri Takaoka' Subject: RE: Questions on Marymount #2 Mayor Pro Tem Long, Staff's responses to your inquiries are provided below in blue italics. This message will be included in the late correspondence package provided to the Council at tomorrow night's meeting. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Thanks, Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Principal Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rp Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. One additional question. I would like the responses to these copied to me and to staff as well (but not to other councilmembers directly) and would also like them included in late correspondence. I may have more questions later. (4) Library and SOC. The primary reason a statement of overriding considerations ("SOC") is sought seems to be for the construction of the library. At a minimum it appears the library cannot be built without an SOC. The appellants indicate they are in favor of the library but they oppose the SOC. Am I 3/29/2010 M00 Page 2 of 4 understanding the need for the SOC and appellant's position regarding the same correctly? Is the SOC also necessary to the construction of other items and if so which ones? I seek a response from the appellants, the College and staff on this question. The EIR concludes that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts only in the areas of short-term construction noise and cumulative traffic impacts at the intersection of PVDE and PVDS. In Staff's view, neither of these conclusions is a direct result of the inclusion of the library, but both are instead based on the analysis of the entirety of the project as now proposed with the removal of the dormitories. Unless further environmental analysis was concluded to determine what specific pieces of the project could be constructed without triggering either of the unmitigable impacts, the City will not know if simply removing the library would eliminate these two impacts. Similarly, the City would not know if removing all other parts of the project and just constructing the Library might avoid the impacts. So, Staff does not believe the record as it presently exists provides evidence to support that the SOC is needed "primarily" because of construction of the library. At this point the SOC is required if the project is approved substantially as proposed, and if something substantially lesser is approved, the City could assess whether an SOC would still be required. It should also be noted that short-term construction noise would occur from any construction on the site, even with a scaled back project. From: Long, Thomas D. Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:39 PM To: 'jlkarp@cox.net'; 'ddavis@bwslaw.com' Cc: 'joelr@rpv.com'; 'Carol Lynch'; 'clehr@rpv.com' Subject: FW: Questions on Marymount Importance: High To the College and the Appellants: I invite you to respond to my questions to the staff below. I prefer responses in writing and before the hearing if possible. I apologize for the short notice but we only recently received our packets and my work schedule this week did not permit me to review the materials and formulate questions earlier. Please copy staff on your responses so they may be included in late correspondence for all other councilmembers. Please do not directly copy other councilmembers. (Other than that limitation, though, feel free to share this with whomever you please.) I may submit additional questions. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes The Appellants cite several sections of the RPV Municipal Code about which I have questions. Please include these questions and staffs answers in late correspondence. Please also copy representatives of the appellants and the college and ask for their responses. 3/29/2010 Page 3 of 4 (1) Parking. Appellants cite 17.50.020 and claim that RPV's code requires a total of 873 parking spaces. {See Appeal Tab 1.} But appellants seem to add together requirements that do not appear to me to be cumulative. It seems that only the requirement for colleges and universities would apply. Further, the third sentence of the section reads: "For additions to existing developments, the increased parking requirement shall be based only on the addition." It does not seem that the appellants took this limitation of the code section into account. How does staff respond to the parking calculation provided by appellants? It seems to me that since no new enrollment is being added and only a small number of employees, that far less than 120 additional parking spaces would be required because there is not enough of an "addition" to justify such an increase. According to the Final EIR Appendix D, page 3.3-37provides a calculation of the parking requirements per City Code for the proposed project, and estimates that 397 parking spaces are needed for the 793 students, 112 parking spaces are needed for the 222 employees / faculty, and 131 parking spaces are needed for the 653 student seats for a total parking requirement of 640 spaces. The analysis then proceeds to reach the conclusion that based on project specific data and considerations, the proposed 463 parking spaces would adequately serve the parking demand, with incorporation of certain mitigation measures. The Appendix D calculation follows the requirements in Section 17.50.020 for Colleges and universities, which provides: "1 space for every 2 full-time regularly enrolled students plus 1 space for every 5 student seats plus 1 space for every 2 employees/faculty" (2) Validity of Entitlements for More than One Year. Appellants claim the PC approval and staff recommendation are improper under section 17.86.070 as providing entitlements valid for more than one year. Appellants seem to be stating that RPV's municipal code requires construction to be completed within one year of the issuance of entitlements. {See Appeal Tab 3.} But the code section appears to me to only require "commencement upon the permitted use" which is defined in ways in Subsection (A) that make it clear to me that 3/29/2010 �1t� Page 4 of 4 the construction need not be completed within one year. What is staff's view? Staff is in agreement with the assessment that it is commencement of the use, as defined in the code. Staff would add that for conditional use permits, the 1 year period in which to commence is a default position, but that Section 17.60.070 provides, in relevant part that "The time limit shall be a reasonable time based on the size and nature of the proposed development. If no date is specified by the Planning Commission or City Council, a conditional use permit shall be valid for one year from the date of final action on the permit or approval." It is important to note that the Code allows the Commission and Council to set longer periods than 1 year for "commencement" of entitlements. (3) Affordable Housing Requirement. Appellants claim that Marymount has an affordable housing requirement citing section 17.11.140. {See Appeal Tab 7.} Appellants point out that for non-residential developments adding more than 101000 square feet there is such a requirement. But it seems to me that Section B(3) provides an exemption if fewer than 10 jobs will be low or very low income and that therefore there is no affordable housing requirement. (Unless there will be 10 more such jobs than there are now --will there be?) What is staffs view? Staff suggests looking at Section 11 of PC Resolution No. 2009-28, at page 31 (which can be found in the Binders provided to the Council in August 2009), which explains the Planning Commission thinking that the project, without the residence halls, generates less than 10 new jobs, and thus is exempt from the Code's affordable housing requirements. Moreover, the college has maintained that they would not be adding more than 10 jobs of low or very low income, which was put in writing on April 24, 2009 by the College's legal counsel, Don Davis. I may have more questions later, but this is all for now. By the way it would be helpful to some of us if the municipal code were in a larger font on the city website. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. y � { 3/29/2010 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:49 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: MARYMOUNT-INITATIVE From: Vic & Sil Quiarte [mailto:vicsilq@cox.net] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:25 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: MARYMOUNT-INITATIVE This is in response to Councilman Stern request for resident info on the Marymounti- initiative. I feel that the subject is really two problems. One is the College the other is the Initiative itself. First, I am in support of the Marymount expansion. I feel that Council should approve the project,sans dormitories, at the next Council meeting. I can accept the plan with dorms or not. I think the College will be an asset to our City. I know the residents near the campus are concerned about many factors regarding the facility but since I am not any where close I don't recognize the problems. I am concerned about their feelings but I know there are residents in the area that are proponents of expansion so it is not a unanimous position by opponents. Good luck in your votes. Second, the Initiatve itself is not a good process in getting the expansion done. As Councilman Stern indicated it violates city policies, regulations, and procedures. It is an improper vehicle to accomplish the job. One must use this LEGAL procedure with concern and good judgment. It is too bad that the public was not educated to the pros and cons of this procedure so that we would understand the danger in using this procedure. It is too late at this time to do anything to prevent its passage as I suspect it will get the required signatures. As a result I see a possible victory for the initiative. It could be that York and Trump could now try the same tactic but the public probably would not support an initiative by these men as they are not highly regarded in our community. Who knows? Question. How do you fight the initiative and support the Marymount expansion? You guys earn the big salary you get. But THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO. Vic Quirarte 0� / 3/26/2010 10M From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:54 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Scary parts of carpenteria Initiative fight From: Ken Dyda [mailto:kendyda@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:25 PM To: tmredfield@cox.net Cc: cc@rpv.com; forelc@cox.net Subject: Scary parts of carpenteria Initiative fight All, Their initiative, if approved, will allow the applicant to make any changes in their plan after the election. And further, it makes the permit proces strictly administrative. WOW! !! Ken Dyda 3/26/2010 CS?. From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:55 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: terit@rpv.com; 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Follow up to your phone call Attachments: City Attorney Brief.pdf; LA Times Oil Company spends lavishly.pdf From: Ken Dyda [mailto:kendyda@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:19 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Fwd: Follow up to your phone call Mar 25, 2010 11:27:21 AM, b.dbjordan@verizon.net wrote: Hi Ken, I've attached the City Attorney's brief and an article from the business columnist in the LA Times who also has a big problem with self-serving initiatives. I wrote to him after seeing an article he did on the PG&E initiative. He very well might be interested in your story too. I'll also scan that editorial that ran in the LB Press Telegram and send it by separate email. Our website can be found at: www..citizensagainstparedon..o 2 I wish you the best of luck. It sounds like you're off to a strong start. Donna Jordan 3/26/2010 B218607 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX PETER N. BROWN, as City Attorney, etc. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VENOCO, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court State of California, County of Santa Barbara The Honorable Thomas P. Anderle County Superior Court Case No. 1305637 APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ERIC BERG (State Bar No. 134621) 21 East Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone No.: (805) 963-7000 Facsimile No.: (805) 965-4333 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP Timothy H. Irons (State Bar No. 191758) 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel. No.: (310) 500-4600 Fax No.: (310) 500-4602 DIANE M. MATSINGER (State Bar No. 096826) Attorney at Law 33 West Mission Street Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone No.: (805) 448-6051 Attorneys for Appellant Peter N. Brown and for Substituting Party City of Carpinteria CA of �V i . t•'•f • j' .'iv. ,' _ j e�• . r , , ..•t�� . , t•, t : }�,t•.. ' :Y , ?:' •,t j .r•?w ✓.+..� '' .r,•^ 1s a.s'• , , r 's .'. •� % y' •.r; :: s• •: t 'i . •;y'' i• ' i, a• i' :, :I•• :;t ;io;.,y' j..'Lw '3:` 'k r'..:"'•?'' ..}' .Yit'^Y •e r•: ':'• t: s.Ys:.t' '.J ;'y M1•,r s' '' :y}'��•: e.'t: i,?r•�r_s�.. V. •C.a'ur^of AP]pgal , State - Of Calafar�ia ' �SecandrAppell�te c - , CER.iTMCA•TY 0F.. -INTERESTED MN'TI�IES C?R,T}aRSa1YS ' • ' ': " :. •T' :,' ;'' • ' '•�' ,• i. �i,,.: .% l: T: rte= u;r Caiut of Agg - Iber. ': B ? 8 6{l ':, i'••,i' • • ' :•.' S , . is ° ='- 4 a..•1 r. it ., , ' ,. .t• 5�.!'''' •-t'�tw�FwyMin[�r�'.��� i .3'= • '`'•• .��+• ..n .y .r •' .�' i �.s+!'.:.•' ? :i'` .t '�•, t •• 7'• •WM�l J. Fr Y'•Y;1P' �,i,,' i'-°• '�.r t1i•{,''! . `"• `r. ; ' , CF sf: LY,riLI:LP.,••.'Pe N. •.'BiOWII•+'V �' .*Veno o' '' �1C•w'•' •2�'., 'A .:' �' •' • V ,`.. " ,' ::-`�" A •.L9'- yy '` ' ' s:+i �1� '• i •i. J•.. • P' 'i +,," _ 3•.� � .i• . y,. {,i .i r.'' ice:,'• "w:.r•�,, -•t'R.,„t,i�.F:.ICi,�,checkthe:.apPioale"liox:' fir.;. ..'r5` }�"� �,iA••i�i.;y� '' �.��''tita'" .'i: 'r, •,i i.: � , s . •,..'• .. . i .. t' r -?' . • r • • '� ' •• •@.'•+•r"4•N.:'4'r•'�'•��:+ • i=��it.�'�7: r ;w' '' .• •,,• . r, ort. i:....�i,r.,..•'Jr... ,. i.•, :•., •'.: r ;..•,, �•, '• ,' •, i'�a .: .,. .. .. '..' ,. .: '- ..; ':'' �:•' I'herc are'aii;i�atexaste3 entities QE'partke'to Iist'in, tbh Ce tsffeate per Califo�a ..• �: 4�LZ: R 1. 3 ;irN ,(!�.. )• - � .i• ., • . .' • .r, ';: � :Y.', ;: •i •:Y'L .s, •4Ys �?r• •.r;' le.••v a•'Y•j, •'y •.J.,S..r•t'1i ::: 7•.i�' 'i''Z�,'. 'r'a•'r,• •r, ', :. n :.�'. r•.3:.. 'J''�:f}s t - '�.� � , a �y� �at� ,moi. s _ . sr. .. e r .�. . w" . •' �:J•:.•f"' • `y:: ;i.' ''i!"i{ _% .r ,��iT r .: !7.•t,�.n.,•r�;i 'r't>:i �s�••••��;�.ripial{.ii��e�ities.or �arti�s a[re listed below:+'.•,r 'J. `•s, S•:'r•:.:. �. .t•;......r ... • _ - _-. .•t' •...-N y�:_'.whl'r�:�,• +a • •a; ' sf i,:,t ?7Ar• - - r;. - r„ :. L-- ' . s a r - : '. - • - sr - - t7i• „r: _ -- ,�; - ••- - •". ,,r: " .�- j: •� 'd1 :rr .L •�'t ,,, ... r:, ;.' T �'M1t".'' ! '• '�•.,. ,: `Y}�•-.1: '+p i,�i t: M1.:ii. i••r: .tt.r "= .'r'•I 'L• •.tic{:yt;} Aaf ::'S•'. ..3. t,: •.:'r. '�'. i•^ 'i:s• �•L •. 47. ' j• '.4,. J • ',r. ,�' itt t• , , r.•, .iib. i' w 'Lrr.' • •t, t, � rr'• roLt,t.. . t'r �,�, . i' is :,F• , '� • .•.` • i 7•. , , t. '°:r.L ': !,,• i a,.+' D• I j+•...0,, _ .t •t' • _ '' •. •i. •.Tr•1±�:'�: �:'•': 2? r Q 'g= y�' • '"" A; .�'` - 7s?� •th nti�y.or er'so 1rcf rma btin if � 2cen ary.' ' ..::.:,,•. ': , .. lr jr-.��•�•i:'ir• .S'. -•iq^• :t, :: :s` t .r,. ,. ..y • , •+'t :t• .:.•t..,1 p,•7,,r_si . • �,:•` i °''`•ter ?'?:r 'at't •r t• •'F• :ti•s •: . , . .' '.f•• V s :i+'"t'':,'. �:w•-. s-ri+.' �r•a�t.r •��, ., f.r iyr' . :i . .a t` •. t,•• •, ' .h� e4•'•� h •, ,• L'',s.: `:•..rcj' 'rw..t �'.Zr %,:a �••] •t .�l, •'1.'+tr'• '.� ., r.•r A'• " ''� :�. 'i ,f�-._�.J'�r'�..,.�;�..,.L '•.'a ''' •' :a `:• ..'.:s• 'r�;t .J '. ••r�:yF,�v ? .. ; rte:_ r r.k ,�•. i' :,°' •+''�. w.P'�;�`s• ry • ia i. .•K'•,.: ,t.:' r. ��. ',+Fr,'~:'ri:.: •' . : r,. .:fs ;,,' •t r rasY '� rr� r ', �' '"+. �+..'•: '�:''', .•?J..`r'•'i.:,�•.t sK• .. .•n,. .:ra,: '.' 3' ,, ., r.;` , .. i �t�i.,,.. • s• ..f ,i . _ t;,: ' , •,'s•'• �:.., , 3�: '1: ,; ', ,•,,:•%. i• ,••YM � •L,�.�� •• '• •• ' ' • ' •• •• . � . 't •t• •;Y a': Z: t•.i ,, :, ,,r ;:,• '+. Ssguatwre: of Att Torm ;:.}' • , , r,• .r• y i t, . . 5 , 'r �r. '• :•i .•�• . �5, ti, "I'xint6cV ame:' Timothy.H.-' Ira;i ; Address:• •2029 Centfixy Panic "East ' .. r ::}`. rs• �" 4.�ty;}*r' 4�'. . •'r' '>_ t,1i(+:+'dr�t]t •wi••'i;,it�i?er .'.•`�•5• .,.;a{rL7st• •4..u.?i..G�, '.!p7•U:'$L•t.b..21r0. tlQQ AFg+ rr.1'x7 Cr:•tp�'?J�•'{`aS}•• `r,.�yAAy•YSi . ' a..Q•r /TK�i (L�' i �Vr ,.�4 • ;'.Jy.: jV�•nY'77Qy {',•;xsi•t.'• ' ice[•'sa? .:.-•,'�t: 'r�15y',':.... '.••} � •:ry"�.�r'l'. .•.' .- •::rsii_i.';-r's�. ''•i•,R:5i1r,.' •'. ,.ry. .Mr,it:,,i'�'"3.•�••'t.Y.st•"Cy..;.'„.•. s,:•it.,:r,`.�'ry%:ir:.r::..5”.•.:'i�;y,?,,a.1•r+,'., 3•,-;.ss�by''.'-_'' •arti. '"•',�g!r -` •.'.,s .'yr:i ll:;:'•t^r.•'�=,`•.M',.r.•',':i ':••:: {. ��P Repeserztd': �'`eter7.:;:Bxrax.: :; T.,..y. •. y • . s .y . �ry, ;. •Y S.. '+'r ;'r ' ;i s'' -. fi~r.' . trys: • _•`•:.L:..,;�.: .� :T is r:, t• �:�,., J..'�'i.dl•:•'' ^r•. ., �1. :ti. 'i'' t +r"•••�,s.�. r: y�..+• ..Fw . :�' '.'... �'. M1?' r•'s' ': :):y rlr .r.. ;r, .tiw-� ;s: r,s -.' t}• s .S' ',i �., •: � � .. : .' .�r a i'# T. .tf i i. �5� :r�%.� s..t.r r,:` ,o'.i' !ss•' r•r, .•.• •s' .t:t+i: '•h• �,'' ;•} ,•R' ':; :+x :�r.=:�.. 's�• ::'t; t �'��' '• , rII?'FRQ�F ©F>5'L`Rt�I ' '.�cYA%L P4=R S.-Wn:.HYD,UR.G 3�f7LZ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 1 H. STATEMENT OF CASE................................................................... 5 III. STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY ............................................. 7 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW.............................................................. 7 V. ARGUMENTS................................................................................... 8 A. The "Specific Plan" Would Accomplish an Unlawful and Unprecedented End -Run Around the City's Administrative Permit Process -- in Perpetuity ..................... 8 1. Legislative and Administrative Acts Are Different...................................................................... 9 2. The City's Regulations Provide a Thorough Administrative Discretionary Permit Process ........... 10 3. Respondent Venoco Acknowledged the City's Discretion..................................................................13 4. Each Provision of the Specific Plan Must be Analyzed to Determine Whether it is Legislative or Administrative . .................................. 15 a. In Analyzing the Specific Plan, Substance Governs Over Form......................15 b. Only the Legislative Aspects of a Specific Plan are Subject to the Initiative Process...........................................................16 C. The Paredon Specific Plan is Administrative Because it Includes __.... Proj ect-Level Detail and Intrudes into v the City's Administrative Permit Powers ...... 20 5. The Specific Plan Usurps the City's Adjudicatory Decision -Making Powers ................... 22 a. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Compel the City to Issue a CDP, and it Cannot Grant Venoco Any Vested Right toDevelop ...................................................... 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page b. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Make, or Compel an Agency to Make, Administrative Findings ................................ 25 C. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Transform Discretionary Acts Into Ministerial Acts ............................................. 28 d. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Sidestep the Requirement. that Discretionary Permits be Issued for Modifications to Venoco's Existing Facility........................................................... 30 e. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Allow Modifications to the Project Without Further Discretionary Review bythe City ...................................................... 31 B. This Initiative Violates CEQA Because It Compels the Approval of the Project and the Issuance of a CDP Without CEQA Review ....................................................... 33 C. The Initiative Violates the Constitution Because It Names a Private Party to Perform Functions and Have Powers and Duties................................................................ 38 D. The Initiative is Invalid Because it is Inconsistent with the General Plan.................................................................. 40 1. The Initiative Creates Horizontal Inconsistencies in the General Plan by Exempting the Project from Certain Policies _.. . Without Resolving the Inconsistencies Created by Those Exemptions.... ............................,:............... 42 2. The Initiative Creates Vertical Inconsistencies Because it Does Not Amend the Carpinteria Municipal Code ......................................................... 46 3. Inconsistencies Cannot Lawfully Be Resolved by the Use of a Precedence Clause ........................... 47 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page E. Severance is Impossible....................................................... 48 VI. CONCLUSION...............................................................................52 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Page FEDERAL CASES Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374................................................................................22 Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. (1976) 426 U.S. 668................................................................................ 25 STATE CASES Alexander v. Mitchell (1953) 119 Cal.App.2nd 816................................................................ 51 Andrews v. City of San Bernardino (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 459..................................................:.................. 26 Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511.........................................................................passim Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582.................................................................... 28, 30, 35 Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785............................................................................... 25 Breslin v. City & County of San Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.AppAth 1064 ................................ Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Cal.3d 805....................................................................-49, 51 California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957.......................:.......................................3738 Chandis Securities Co. v. City of Dana Point (1996) 52 Cal.AppAth 475....................................................................... 16 Citizens for Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553......................................................................... 36,41 iv THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT q o{ 14 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page. Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange (2002) 94 Cal.AppAth 1311.......................................................... 8, 16, 32 Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo (2009) 176 Ca1.AppAth 357.............................................................passim City of Burbank v. Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority (2003) 113 Cal.AppAth 465...................................................................... 7 City of Poway v. City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1037...................................................................20 City of San Diego v. Dunkl (2001) 86 Cal.AppAth 384 ...................................................... 8, 10, 22, 26 Corona Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.AppAth 985...................................................................... 41 C-YDevelopment Co. v. City of Redlands (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 926 .............................................. ..................... 29 Day v. City of Glendale (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 817..........................................................:............ 30 De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763........................................................................passim Dore v. County of Ventura (1994) 23 Cal.AppAth 320...................................................................... 24 Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.AppAth 777.................................................................... 46 Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County. v. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 1332 ........................................................ 41, 42, 43 Fishman v. City of Palo Alto (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 506............................................................. 8, 10, 16 V s 6f -7� TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.AppAth 1174.................................................................. 28 Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 1383....................................................................37 Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259............................................................... 30,35 Gerken v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1993) 6 CalAth 707......................................................................... 49,51 Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. Turlock City Council (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 584.......:.............................................................26 Hafen v. County of Orange (2005) 128 Cal.AppAth 133....................................................................29 Health First v. March Joint Powers Authority (2009) 174 Cal.AppAth 1135..................................................................29 Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605..................................................................:............26 In re Damien V. (2008) 163 Cal.AppAth 16............................................................ 31,39 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Ca. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 386............................................................................... 36 Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach —_ (2007) 147 Cal.AppAth 1375..................................................................29 Marblehead v. City of San Clemente (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1504..................................................................... 7 McAllister v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 169 Cal.AppAth 912.............................................................. 23,29 Vi !o '0� 7�4. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723.......................................................................15 Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 342........................................................... 40-41, 43 .Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 268.................................................................... 35 Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Assn v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 215.................................................................... 36 Oceanside Marina Towers Assn v. Oceanside Community Development Com. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 735......................................................................16 Pacifica Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168.............................................................. 23,29 Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors (1997) 54 Cal.AppAth 565............................................................ 7, 40, 50 Patterson v. Central Coast Regional Com. (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 833............................................................. 23,29P35 People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830....................................................................... 20 People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 316............................................................. I..... 51 Rental Housing Assn of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.AppAth 741 ............................... ............................ 49,50 Sarter v. Siskiyou County (1919) 42 Cal.App. 530 ............................................... .................... 4,35 Schweitzer v. Westminster Investments (2007) .157 Cal.AppAth 1195.................................................................. 50 Vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES'. (continued) Page Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541................................................................................. 26 Shorb v. Barkley (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 873..................................................................... 29 Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698..................................................................... 48 Southwest Diversified, Inc. v. City of Brisbane (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1548...................................................................16 Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 458..................................................................... 34 Sustainability of Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund v. County of Solano Dept. of Resource Management (2008) 167 Cal.AppAth 1350.................................................................. 29 Topanga Assn. For A Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506....................................................................26-27, 28 W. W. Dean & Associates v. City of South San Francisco (1987)190 Cal.App.3d 1368....................................................................16 Wheelright v. County of Marin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 448.................................................................................18 Widde-rs.v. Furchtenicht (2008) 167 Cal.AppAth 769.............................................:........................ 7. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612 ................................................. :............. 15-16 Wiltshire v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 296.........................................................10, 26, 27 Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.AppAth 543....................................................................29 Viii /C� 4 7� . TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Worthington v. City Council of City of Rohnert Park (2005) 130 Ca1.App.4th 1132.................................................................... 6 Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561........................................................................passim STATE STATUTES Code of Civ. Proc. §1060.............................................................................. 7 Code of Civ. Proc. §1085 ............................................................................ 28 Code of Civ. Proc. §1094.5 ......................................................................... 28 Code of Civ. Proc. §904(a)(1)........................................................................ 7 Elec. Code §9203.......................................................................................... 5 Elec. Code §9212.......................................................................................... 6 Elec. Code §9215.......................................................................................... 6 Government Code §§65450 et seq.............................................................19 Government Code §65300.................................................................... 40,42 Government Code §65300.5 ..................................................... 41, 42, 45, 48 Government Code §65301.5 ..................................................... . ..............18 Government Code §65302.......................................................................... 41 Government Code §65450 ..........................................................................19 Government Code §65451....................................................................17, 19 Government Code §65453...........................................................................19 Government Code §65454.............................................................. 41, 42, 47 Government Code §65507..........................................................................18 ix /3 4 74 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - (continued) Page Government Code §65860..............................................................41, 47, 48 Government Code §65864.......................................................................... 24 Government Code §65867.5......................................................................... 6 Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq.................................................................. 36 Pub. Res. Code §§30000 et seq.................................................................. 40 Pub. Res. Code §21002......................................................................... 36,38 Pub. Res. Code §21002.1............................................................................ 38 Pub. Res. Code §21002.1(b).......................................................................36 Pub. Res. Code §21004...........................................................................38 Pub. Res. Code §21065......................................................................... 34,35 Pub. Res. Code §21080(a)........................................................................... 35 Pub. Res. Code §21080(b)(1)...................................................................... 34 Pub. Res. Code §21081............................................................................... 36 Pub. Res. Code §21151............................................................................... 36 Pub. Res. Code §21151(a)........................................................................... 36 Pub. Res. Code §30101.5............................................................................11 Pub. Res. Code §30512............................................................................40 Pub. Res. Code §30513...............................................................................40 Pub. Res. Code §30514...............................................................................40 Pub. Res. Code §30607...............................................................................12 Pub. Res. Code §30624.9............................................................................29 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: (continued) Page Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., § § 13001 et seq.................................................. 40 Title 14 Cal. Code Regs., 15000 et se Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., §15002(a).......................................................... 38 Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., §15021(a)..........................................................36 Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., § 15091.............................................................. 36 Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., §15378(b)(3)..................................................... 34 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Cal. Const. Article II, §2............................................................................. 50 Cal. Const. Article 11,'§ 8......................................................................... 9,52 i Cal. Const. Article II, § 11....................................................................... 9,52 Cal. Const. Article II, § 12............................................................... 3 8, 39, 40 Cal. Const. Article IV, § 1.............................................................. ............ 8 Cal. Const. Article XII, §2............................................................................ 4 TREATISES Miller & Starr, California Real Estate, §25:7 ........ .....................................19 OTHER AUTHORITY The University of Chicago Spanish Dictionary 179 (Fourth ed., 1987)......................................................................................1 xi 1,5 0 �- 7x TO THE HONORABLE ARTHUR GILBERT, PRESIDING JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX: Appellant Peter N. Brown as City Attorney of the City of Carpinteria and the City of Carpinteria respectfully submit this Opening Brief. I. INTRODUCTION. In California, the people's right to legislate by initiative is reserved by the Constitution and jealously guarded by the courts. However, the people have no right, Constitutional or otherwise, to administer. In most cases, it is relatively simple to differentiate between legislative and administrative acts. Some cases require a closer look. This is one of those cases. In the 1960s, before there was -a Coastal Act or a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), operations began at the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facility (CPF). The 35 -acre site, now operated by Respondent Venoco, Inc. ("Venoco") is in a most sensitive area of the Coastal Zone — it fronts on the Pacific Ocean and a harbor seal rookery. Under the permit for the CPF, Venoco was authorized to process, store and transmit oil and natural gas by pipeline from offshore platforms. In 2005, Venoco determined to expand. its facilities by adding the "Paredon Project."' Venoco submitted an application to the City of Carpinteria which sought both legislative approvals (e.g., amendment of the -.General Plan/Local Coastal Plan) and administrative approvals (e.g.,, development plan, coastal development permit, conditional use permit). The choice of words here is perhaps apposite. "Paredon" is a Spanish word that refers to an "execution wall." (The University of Chicago Spanish Dictionary 179 (Fourth ed., 1987).) 1 The "Paredon Project" described in the application involved modifications to the CPF and the addition of an "extended reach" oil and gas drilling operation. In an extended reach operation, the rig is located onshore rather than in the channel, and the drilling apparatus extends from the shore to the offshore reserves. The City conducted extensive administrative proceedings on Venoco's application, including the preparation of an environmental impact report (`BIR"). However, before Venoco's application could be submitted to the City's decision -makers, Venoco switched strategies, filing what came. to be known as the "Paredon Oil and Gas Development Initiative" ("Initiative") with the City and asking the City to suspend processing of the 2005 application. The Paredon Project described in the Initiative is largely the same project described in Venoco's application to the City, but without the health, safety and other conditions that would have been required by the Carpinteria Municipal Code ("CMC") and the EIR. Because onshore oil drilling is currently prohibited in Carpinteria, the Initiative amends the City's General Plan/Local Coastal Plan ("GP/LCP") in sixteen places. The amendments leave all of .the City's existing policies in place, "except" insofar as they might apply to the Paredon Project. The Initiative seeks to resolve any inconsistencies with a "Precedence." clause, which states that the Initiative will supersede any inconsistent planning or zoning policy. As a matter of law, this type of electoral legislation, which is drafted to give favored projects a "freebie," is invalid because it . undoes the Planning and Zoning Laws which require consistency within the GP/LCP. The Initiative also includes a document entitled the "Paredon Specific Plan" ("Specific Plan"). The Specific Plan not only crosses the line between legislative and administrative acts in the land use context — it obliterates the line entirely. 2 17 0f- 7�1 The Specific Plan is not a general plan for a specific area or property, as the Legislature intended. Rather, it sets forth permit -level specificity with respect to both the development and operation of the Paredon Project. For example, the Specific Plan does not merely allow onshore drilling. It authorizes, inter alfa, "continuous active drilling," 24 - hours every day from a 140 -foot rig located just behind City Hall for approximately 6 years, as well as drilling as necessary to refine each well thereafter for the 30 year life of the project. The Specific Plan is so detailed that the trial court found that the Specific Plan defined the project as the prescribed use — and therein lies the problem. The electorate has the power to legislate the purpose for which a particular parcel of property may be used because that is generally a zoning decision, which is a legislative act. However, the electorate does not have the power to approve a "project" as a prescribed use of property because project approval is an administrative act which involves the exercise of considerable discretion by the permitting agency. The Initiative is also without precedent in its attempt to sidestep the entire City permit process by compelling _the issuance of :a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Under the Initiative, the City "shall" issue a CDP as long as the application for the permit is consistent with the Specific Plan, i.e. the Paredon Project. And, to ensure that the City never interferes with Venoco's development objectives, the Initiative expressly provides that the issuance of a CDP, all subsequent permits, and all determinations of CEQA compliance are "ministerial" and mandatory, as long as the application is consistent with the Specific Plan.. Ergo - the Initiative effectively demotes the City Council 'to a rubber stamp committee for a private corporation's chosen development scenario, and creates an automatic, perpetual permit machine for Respondent Venoco. 3 ld �' !L� Lest there be any doubt about who the Initiative was designed to serve, the Specific Plan grants extensive rights to the "Operator" of the Paredon Project, including the right to modify the Specific Plan (and hence the Project) at any time and the right to stand in the City's shoes during Coastal Commission LCP amendment proceedings. The "Operator" could not be any entity other than Venoco - because the Project is defined as the modification of Venoco's existing facilities as well as the expansion of those facilities to allow for extended reach drilling. Therefore, the Specific Plan also violates Section II, Article 12 of the California Constitution, which prohibits an Initiative from naming any private corporation to have any powers or duties. Some of the issues presented by this appeal involve questions of first impression; others involve the application of settled precedent to the specific language of the Initiative. One thing is certain. If the Initiative is allowed to stand, the implications for local land use permitting authority in California will be profound. Permit issuance and other adjudicatory acts could be mandated by initiative. A property owner unsatisfied with an agency's denial or conditioning of his or her application for a CDP or other discretionary land use permit could reverse that decision by referendum. Permits could be modified after -the -fact by the electorate to increase the extent of approved development or to establish less onerous operating requirements, sidestepping any administrative permit review. Authorizing the electorate to use the initiative/referenda process to these ends would turn the system of land use permitting in California on its head. It is a general principle of law that an act which "cannot be done directly obviously cannot be done indirectly." (Sarter v. Siskiyou County (1919) 42 Cal.App. 530, 538.) As set forth below, regardless of the labels selected by the drafters of the Initiative (e.g., general plan, specific plan, ministerial permit), the effect of each provision of the Initiative must be 0 /9 01(- 7� examined to determine its validity. This brief conf rms that, when the Initiative is subjected to the proper level of scrutiny, so many of its provisions are invalid that it cannot be saved by invoking the doctrine of severance. Therefore, Appellant respectfully submits that the Initiative must be invalidated in its entirety. II. STATEMENT OF CASE. On February 2, 2009, Respondents submitted the .text of the proposed Initiative to the City and requested that a copy be forwarded to the City Attorney for preparation of a ballot title and summary (CT' 1186). On February 17, 2009, City Attorney Peter N. Brown filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, seeking a declaration that the Initiative was invalid in its entirety (CT 001-100 and CT 026) and a stay of his statutory duty to prepare a ballot title and summary (CT 025-026; CT 101- 434; Elec. Code, §9203). On February 20, 2009, the case was assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Anderle (CT;435). On March 23, 2009, Respondents answered (CT 445-462) and filed a Cross -Petition for Writ of Mandate ordering the City Attorney to prepare the ballot summary (CT 462-471).. The City Attorney answered the Cross -Petition on April 27, 2009 (CT 507-514). The trial court granted Appellant's request for stay, conditioned on the establishment of an expedited briefing schedule (CT 474-501, 515-517, 521-524). The matter was briefed (CT 530-575, 1433-1474, 1483-1512, 1513-1531), and proceeded to trial on July 28, 2009 (CT 1538, RT -1-31). The trial court issued its ruling at the end of trial (CT 1539-1543). The trial court found that the Initiative was substantively valid, except for the provision that compelled the City to enter into a non -negotiated 2 Citations to the Clerk's Transcript and Reporter's Transcript are to "CT" and "RT," respectively, followed by page number(s). 5 ao OF 7� Development Agreement with Respondent Venoco (Id. )3 The trial court ordered the City Attorney to comply with the writ on or before September 1, 2009 (RT 28-29, CT 1564). Appellant's request for a statement of decision was denied; the order disposed of all claims (CT 1539). Notice of Entry of Order was served on July 30; 2009 (CT 1544- 1551). The City Attorney filed his Notice of Appeal on August 19, 2009 (CT 1552-1561). Respondents moved for attorneys' fees after trial (CT 1582-1637, 1638-1657, 1661-1671). However, after the parties stipulated that the individual Respondents Downs, Gahan and Mesick had no financial liability for attorneys' fees (CT 1658-1660); the trial court denied the motion (CT 1672-1674). Respondents did not appeal that ruling. On September 1, 2009, the trial court held a further case status conference and the City Attorney informed the court that he had prepared the ballot and title summary and would be pursuing appellate review of the validity of the Initiative (CT 1563-1571, 1578). After the City Attorney prepared the ballot title and summary, the initiative process continued, culminating in the preparation of a Report (Elec. Code, §9212), the consideration of that Report by the City Council on December 14, 2009, and a vote by the City Council. to order the Initiative placed on the June, 2010 ballot (Elec. Code, §9215).4 3 Section 5 of the Initiative was properly stricken, and Respondents did not cross-appeal. Government Code section 65867.5 providesAthat development agreements are "legislative acts" which must be approved by ordinance and are "subject to referendum." However, the negotiation of a development agreementis not a legislative act. (See, e.g., Worthington v. City Council of City of Rohnert Park (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1132, 1143 ("When an action requires the consent of the governmental entity and another party, the action is contractual or administrative. The give-and-take involved when a government entity negotiates an agreement ... is not legislation, but is a process requiring the consent of both contracting parties").) 4 The City's proceedings after the trial court's order are established by 2 III. STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY An order granting issuance of a writ of mandate is an appealable order. (Breslin v. City & County of San Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.AppAth 1064, 1073-1074.) An order denying declaratory relief is also an appealable order. (Code Civ. Proc., §1060.) This. appeal therefore lies. (Code Civ. Proc., §904(a)(1).) IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW In Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo (2009) 176 Cal.AppAth 357 ( "Citizens for Planning Responsibly"), this Court confirmed that the question of whether an initiative 'constitutes a legislative or adjudicative act is reviewed de novo. (Id. at 366.) The de novo standard applies whether the challenge is brought pre-election (Widders v. Furchtenicht (2008) 167 Cal.AppAth 769, 776; City of Burbank v. Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority (2003) 113 Cal.AppAth 465, 471-472) or post-election (Citizens for Planning Responsibly, at 366; Marblehead v. City of San Clemente (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1504, 1508). In Citizens for Planning Responsibly, this Court noted that the state constitutional right of initiative or referendum is one of the most precious rights of our democratic process; the Court's duty is to "jealously guard" these powers and "construe the relevant constitutional provisions liberally in favor of the people's right to exercise the powers of initiative and referendum." (Citizens for Planning Responsibly, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth. at 366-367; Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Board of Supervisors (1997) 54 Cal.AppAth 565, 573-574 ("Pala").) At the same time, this Court also confirmed that "[o]nly legislative acts are subject to the initiative process." the December 16, 2009 Declaration of Peter N. Brown in Support of the Motion for Substitution of the City of Carpinteria as Appellant and for other relief. 7 (Citizens for Planning Responsibly, at 367, citing De Vita v.. County of Napa (1995) 9 Ca1.4th 763, 775 ("DeVita").) That the electorate may only exercise its initiative and referenda powers for legislative matters is well settled: "While it has been generally said that the reserved power of initiative and referendum accorded by article IV, section 1, of the Constitution is to be liberally construed to uphold it whenever reasonable, it is established beyond dispute that the power of referendum may be invoked only with respect to matters which are strictly legislative in character. Under an unbrokdn line of authorities, administrative or executive acts are not within the reach of the referendum process." (Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1331-1333 ("Citizens for Jobs"), emphasis added, citing City of San Diego v. Dunkl (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 384 ("Dunkl")(citations omitted).) (See, also, Fishman v. City of Palo Alto (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 506, 508-509 ("Fishman").) The principle issue on this appeal is whether the Initiative complies with this limitation on the power of the electorate. V. ARGUMENTS Appellant respectfully submits the following arguments, each of which demonstrates the substantive invalidity of the Initiative and all of which compel the conclusion that there is no manner by which the invalid provisions might be severed without undermining the Initiative's overall purpose. Thus, the entire Initiative must fail. A. The "Specific Plan" Would Accomplish an Unlawful and Unprecedented End -Run Around the City's Administrative Permit Process -- in Perpetuity. Courts generally differentiate between legislative and administrative acts on a categorical basis, and some courts have broadly stated that "specific plans" are legislative acts. However, the primary Opinion from 8 cP 3 c -f— 171� which these statements are drawn (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Ca1.3d 561 ("Yost")) held only that the legislative aspects of a specific plan are legislative acts because those aspects are similar to the legislative aspects of a general plan. The decision to issue a CDP, and the determination of whether a project complies with CEQA, are not legislative acts. They are administrative acts, which involve the exercise of the permitting agency's discretion.. In the City of Carpinteria, applications for land use entitlements undergo extensive administrative review by various City departments before the applications are submitted to the City's decision -makers. One of the threshold questions presented by this appeal is whether Venoco can avoid the City's entire administrative process by simply attaching the label "specific plan" to its proposal. The answer must be "No." The Specific Plan is not entitled to "categorical" treatment as a legislative act because it contains extensive administrative provisions. Moreover, the administrative provisions of the Specific Plan completely usurp the City's discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the CDP application, which is an essential government function. The Initiative is long and complex, with administrative provisions being woven together with legislative ones. It cannot be untangled without first examining the recognized distinction between legislative and administrative acts, explaining the many administrative and discretionary acts involved in the City's issuance of a CDP, and answering a question not addressed by Yost, supra, 36 Cal.3d 561. 1. Legislative and Administrative Acts Are Different. Under the California Constitution, the electorate's power of initiative is limited to the consideration and amendment of the Constitution, statutes and ordinances. (Cal. Const., art. II, §§8, 11.) Appellant's challenge to the Initiative begins with the principles which distinguish legislative acts from Vol administrative acts. "Legislative acts are those which declare a public purpose whereas administrative, sometimes called adjudicative or quasi -adjudicative, acts implement the steps necessary to carry out that legislative purpose." (Citizens -for Planning Responsibly, supra, 176 Cal..App.4th at 367, citing Dunkl, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at 399-400; see, also, Fishman, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at 509.) In the land use context, legislative acts include amendments to general plans and zoning ordinances. (Citizens for Planning Responsibly, supra, at 364 (general plan and zoning regulations); Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511 ("Arnel") (zoning ordinance).) Administrative, adjudicatory and other non- legislative acts include the issuance of coastal development permits (discussed at length below) and conditional and special use permits (Wiltshire v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 ("Wiltshire")), authorization for construction of specific improvements (Fishman, at 508-509) and agency findings with respect to the implementation of policy (Dunkl, at 399). Despite its label, the Specific Plan does not lend. itself to "categorical" treatment as a legislative act because it not only declares a public purpose, it compels the administrative acts necessary to implement that purpose. 2. The City's Regulations Provide a Thorough Administrative Discretionary Permit Process. In Arnel, supra, 28 Cal.3d 511, the Supreme Court described the nature of the permit decisions which are classified as administrative and - adjudicative: "In classifying such decisions as adjudicative, courts have emphasized that the decisions generally involved the application of standards established in the zoning ordinance to individual parcels ... and often require 10 findings to comply with statutory requirements or to resolve factual disputes ...." (Id. at 519, fn. 8, citations omitted.) Under this standard, there is no question that the City's land use permit process is adjudicative. The Coastal Act requires coastal cities to adopt a Local Coastal Program ("LCP"), which establishes policies and procedures by which cities may approve development in a manner consistent with state law. Carpinteria's LCP has been certified by the California Coastal Commission and consists of a land use plan, a zoning code, and a series of maps that depict the geographic region of jurisdiction. A central element of Carpinteria's LCP is the CDP permitting process. The Coastal Act defines a CDP as "a permit for any development within the coastal zone that is required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30600." (Pub. Res. Code, §30101.5.) Under the CMC, the permit required for projects within the M -CD —'Coastal Industry District (the zone in which the Paredon Project is located) is a "development plan" (CT 1419 [CMC, §14.30.0201; see, also, CT 637). Therefore, within the M -CD District, the development plan serves as the CDP (Pub. Res. Code, §30101.5). Title 14 of the CMC generally explains the discretionary nature of the development plan process: "The purpose and intent of the development plan is to provide a comprehensive review of development that is subject to the requirements of this chapter in order to assess potential impacts of the proposed == development on existing services and surrounding uses and to ensure that new development is appropriately sited and designed." (CT 1052 [CMC, §14.68.010], emphasis added.) An applicant must submit extensive and intensive information, which is reviewed by numerous City departments and other agencies (CT 11 a6 6�_ 7Z{ 1052-1054 [CMC, §14.68.030(1) and (3)]). Development plans must also be reviewed for compliance with CEQA. : (CT 1054 [CMC §§14.68.030(3)(A)].) Because the development proposed by the Initiative is located in the coastal appeals area, special administrative procedures apply so as to ensure "the maximum amount of public participation in.the.. review of such development." (CT 1050 [CMC, §14.48.0101.) A development application in the coastal appeals zone may be denied, approved, or conditionally approved. (CT 1050 [CMC §14.48.040(3)]; CT 1054 [CMC §14.68.030(5) and (6)]) (See, also, Pub. Res. Code, §30607, which authorizes an agency to impose reasonable terms and conditions.) For all development plans, City decision -makers must evaluate the evidence and comply with the following requirements: "As a condition to the approval of a development plan, the planning commission or city council may impose such other appropriate and reasonable .conditions as it may deem necessary for the protection of property in the neighborhood or, in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare, to carryout the purposes of this title. Prior to approving or approving with conditions a development plan, the planning commission or city council shall determine that the following criteria have been met: "a. The proposed development is in conformance with the provisions of the applicable zoning district, coastal plan and implementation programs, general plan, and specific plan(s) if required; "b. The proposed development is sited and designed--. to avoid risks to life and property due to geologic, flood, or fire hazards and that the proposed density of development is consistent with these objectives; "c. The proposed development will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; 12 --D 7 alf 7 � "d. The proposed development will not conflict with any recorded easements acquired by the public at large for access through the property or use of the'property or any easements granted to any public agency or required as a condition of approval; "e. The proposed development will not adversely affect necessary community services and values including -but not limited to traffic circulation, sewage disposal, fire protection, water supply, and police protection; 'T The proposed development will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, comfort, convenience, property values, or general welfare of the neighborhood." (CT 1055 [CMC, §14.68.030(9)].) CMC, §14.68.030 confirms that ministerial approvals (i.e., grading, use and building permits) occur only after the discretionary CDP has been approved: "Upon approval or conditional approval of the development plan or revised development plan, permits may be issued for grading, uses, buildings and structures which are in conformity with the approved development plan and the conditions imposed....." (CT 1054-1055 [CMC, §14.68.030(8)]), emphasis added.) All these decisions are administrative as a matter of law (see §V(A)(4), infra), a fact that Venoco acknowledged during the processing of its application for a development plan for the "Paredon Project." 3. Respondent Venoco Acknowledged the CUO.. Discretion. As noted in the introduction, Venoco originally sought City approvals for a similar version of the Paredon Project in 2005. The City processed that application and had prepared a Proposed Final EIR. In February 2009, Respondent Venoco requested that the City suspend processing its application (CT 577-579), and attempted instead to use the 13 Initiative process to achieve its development objectives. However, during. the administrative proceedings, Venoco acknowledged several facts which are critical to the issues presented by this appeal. Venoco's application included a request for numerous required approvals, including "CEQA Review, Development Plan, [and] Coastal Development Permit" (CT 658; see, also, CT 779). Venoco also submitted an application for a Zoning Text Amendment ("ZTA') modifying the CMC to allow onshore extended reach drilling and to facilitate other project - specific development (CT 797, 801, see §V(D)(2), infra).' In addition, because Venoco proposed to "[augment] certain facilities by installing new facilities and modifying others" (CT 655), Venoco acknowledged that it would be required to file an application to amend the existing CPF permit (CT 798). In correspondence between the City and Venoco concerning the application (CT 788, et seq.; CT 796, et seq.), Venoco specifically i acknowledged: "The current development plan review and gMroval process vests the City with ample discretion to impose conditions in order to protect the health, safe an wel are of the CiN s residents." (CT 798, emphasis added.) Having acknowledged this critical fact, Venoco apparently became concerned that the exercise of discretion by the City's decision -makers would not give Venoco exactly what Venoco wanted in terms of project approval. So, Venoco drafted the Specific Plan to allow Venoco " all in one document - to. (a) define the new project, (b) avoid discretionary CDP review, (c) avoid any finding which might compel denial or. conditional ' The Initiative does not include any amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance, which also renders the Initiative inconsistent with the CMC in numerous respects (see §V(D)(2), infra). 14 approval -of the project, (d) compel the issuance of the CDP and all required permits, (e) sidestep.the requirement for a modification of the existing CPF, (f) avoid CEQA review, and (g) allow Venoco to control the future modification and development of the project. There is no question that the electorate does not have the power to allow Venoco to do any of these things. 4. Each Provision of the Specific Plan Must be Analyzed to Determine Whether it is Legislative or Administrative. The Court's examination of the Specific Plan will be guided by three principles. First, the substance of the Initiative governs over its form. Therefore, the Court must determine what the Initiatives does, not only what it says. Second, the Court should apply the holding in Yost and the pertinent statutes. to differentiate between the. legislative and administrative aspects of the Specific Plan. Third, the Court should examine the extent to and the manner by which the Specific Plan intrudes into the City's administrative and discretionary decisions. a. In Analyzing the Specific Plan, Substance Governs Over Form. Categorical distinctions are generally used to differentiate between legislative and administrative acts in both the land use - and initiative/referenda context. (Citizens for Planning Responsibly, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 367; Arnel, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 59.) However, categorical distinctions cannot be based on labels which do not accurately describe the particular enactment. In the land use context, when a single agency act is both legislative and adjudicative, the reviewing court separately examines each part of the act under the applicable standard of review. (See, e.g., Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723, 729; William S 15 Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1625, fn. 13.) Similarly, in the context of initiative and referenda, courts have not hesitated to disregard labels and examine specific provisions of a measure, differentiating between legislative and administrative acts. (See, e.g., Citizens for Jobs, supra, 94 Cal.AppAth 1311 (initiative which "purported to deem [certain] acts legislative" was administrative because it "would have changed the procedure and substance of the implementing decisions" (Id., 1322, 1333-1334)); Fishman, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d at 511-512 (referendum identified subject matter as "zoning" but court found that measure 'was administrative); Southwest Diversified, .Inc. v. City of Brisbane (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1548, 1557- 1558 (proponents claimed that court was bound by "generic analysis," but court found that adjustment of zoning boundary under a settlement agreement was an administrative act). The authors of the Initiative plainly hoped that their "Specific Plan" would be treated categorically. However, the Specific Pian is not entitled to categorical treatment. Instead, the Court must look beyond the "legislative" label, examine the substance of the Specific ,Plan, and differentiate between its legislative and administrative aspects. b. Only the Le isg_ latiye Aspects of a Specific Plan are Subiect to the Initiative Process. Yost, supra, 36 Cal.3d 561 is sometimes cited for the broad proposition that the adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act.6 However, the Supreme Court in Yost did not hold that the adoption of any document labeled a "specific plan" would be categorically deemed a 6 See, e.g., Chandis Securities Co. v. City of Dana Point (1996) 52 Cal.AppAth 475, 479-480; W. W. Dean & Associates v. City of South San Francisco (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1368,1386; Oceanside Marina Towers Assn v. Oceanside Community Development Com. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 735, 746. 16 3 / Of 7� legislative act. As this Court acknowledged in Citizens for Planning .Responsibly, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 368, the Supreme Court held that "the legislative aspects of a specific plan are similar to those of general plans." (Yost, at 570, emphasis added.) What did the Supreme Court mean by the "legislative aspects of a specific plan"? To answer this question, we must. begin with an examination of the very broad issue before the Supreme Courtin Yost. In Yost, the City of Santa Barbara amended the city's general plan, adopted a specific plan, and rezoned certain property, all in furtherance of the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) adopted by the City and certified by the Coastal Commission. In the Yost litigation, the City argued that, as a general principle, every single land use decision to be made following the adoption and certification of the LUP was "administrative." The Supreme Court disagreed: "Although certain actions of a city council may be characterized as `administrative' and therefore not subject to referendum, not all land use decisions made after a coastal plan has been adopted and approved by the Commission fall into that category. The Coastal Act does not provide blanket immunity from the voters' referendum power." (Id. at 565.) In addressing the broad question, the Yost Court first held that the adoption and amendment of the general plan and rezoning were "clearly legislative" (Yost, supra, 36 Ca1.3d at 570). The Court then turned to the specific plan: "This leaves the question whether the adoption of a specific plan is to be characterized as a legislative act. We have no doubt that the answer is affirmative. Certainly such action is neither administrative nor adjudicative. ....On the other hand the elements of a specific plan are similar to those found in general plans or in zoning regulations -the siting of buildings, uses and roadways; height, bulk and setback 17 3-z or" 71� limitations; population and building densities; open space allocation (Gov. Code, §65451). The statutory procedure for the adoption and amendment of specific plans is substantially similar to that for general plans (see Gov. Code, §65507). It appears therefore that the legislative aspects of a specific plan are similar to those o, f of neral plans. We find support for this decision in neelright v. County of Marin (1970) 2 Cal.3d 448, 457 (adoption of a "precise" plan is a legislative act) and hold that the adoption of a specific plan by the city council was a legislative act subject to referendum." (Id. at 570-571, citations omitted, emphasis added.) The Supreme Court's reference to the "legislative aspects" of a specific plan allows the reasonable inference that a specific plan might include "administrative aspects." (See, e.g., Arnel, supra, 28 Cal.3d at 518 (discussion of "'administrative' zoning decisions, such as the grant of a variance or the award of a conditional use permit, as being adjudicatory in nature.")) The Yost Court was not called upon to describe those administrative. aspects. Its description of the specific plan was general in nature: "The specific plan was a 14 -page document covering the 23 acres i.. to be developed, which addressed the problems related to the development -of the area." (Yost, supra, 36 Ca1.3d at 569.) However, we know from other portions of the Yost Opinion that the specific plan in Yost did not include.or compel the issuance of "entitlements" for the project, because the developer in Yost had also fled separate applications for discretionary approvals, such as a tentative subdivision map, parking modifications, and development plan (Id. at 569). Other than Yost, no published opinion expressly or impliedly recognizes that a specific plan might include both legislative and administrative aspects. Therefore, we turn to an analysis of the pertinent statutes. 18 9347. The Legislature has specifically established that the adoption of a general plan is a "legislative act" (Gov. Code, §65301.5). The Legislature has not expressly specified whether adoption of a specific plan is legislative or administrative (see, Gov. Code, §§65450, et seq.) However, the statutes which govern specific plans demonstrate that the Legislature contemplated that specific plans would be legislative by nature. Section 65450 describes a specific plan as the manner by which the agency may implement the general plan "for all or part of the area covered by the general plan" Section 65451 sets forth the "required contents" of a specific plan, and describes those contents in legislative terminology. For example, specific plans must include the distribution, location and extent of the uses of land within the plan area, the proposed distribution, location, extent and intensity of essential facilities (e.g., sewer, water, etc.), standards and .criteria under which development will proceed, and a program of implementation measures. The Legislature also mandated that specific plans be prepared, adopted and amended in the, same manner as general plans (Gov: Code, §65453). These are doubtless the provisions which prompted the Yost Court to compare specific plans with general.plans, and acknowledge the "legislative aspects" of a specific plan. (Yost, supra, 36 Ca1.3d at 570571.) Moreover, within the context of the hierarchy of planning decisions, specific plans are generally recognized as legislative planning and policy documents: "The specific plan, if one exists, is the next step down the land use regulation hierarchy ladder from the general plan. The specific plan must be consistent with the general plan and deal with specific land uses, the location, distribution, extent, and intensity of major public facilities, and standards for development and conservation." (Miller & Starr, California Real Estate, §25:7). 19 Miller & Starr also explain that zoning ordinances — also legislative acts — fall next in line (Id. at §25:8) and, in the same -.passage, they confirm the administrative, adjudicatory nature of land use permits: "In some cases, the zoning ordinance provides that specified sensitive land uses which otherwise conform to the applicable zoning designation for the property will be allowed only upon the issuance of a special or conditional use permit, which may be granted or denied in the local agency's discretion based on criteria specified in its ordinance. As with inferior legislative enactments, adjudicatory approvals such as conditional use permits or other discretionary land use permits must be consistent with controlling land use legislation, as embodied in zoning ordinances, specific plans, and general plans." This land use planning hierarchy compels the conclusion that a specific plan goes beyond its legislative. purpose and takes on "administrative aspects" when it intrudes into an agency's administrative, discretionary land use permitting procedures. That is particularly tragi where, as here, a specific plan purports to create a right to the issuance of a permit or other land use entitlement, because it is generally recognized that a specificRlan does not involve the grant of an entitlement. (See, e.g., City of Poway v. City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1047; People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 835. fn. 5 (same holding with respect to "community plan.") This brings us to an examination of the Specific Plan at issue here. C. The Paredon Specific Plan is Administrative Because it Includes.Project-Level Detail and Intrudes into the City's Administrative Permit Powers. Under the title "Specific Plan," the Initiative covers every aspect of the development, installation and operation of the extended reach rig and associated systems, and blends planning level standards and regulations 20 35 O; 7e with the project -level Weciicity required for the issuance of a ep rmit. For example, the Specific Plan does not simply allow: oil wells, it sets the number of wells that will be drilled (up to 35) (CT 615). It does not simply allow the installation of crude oil tanks, it specifies the size of the tanks (5,000 barrels) (CT 617). It does not simply allow the production of oil and natural gas, it sets the number of barrels of oil (up to 11,000) and natural gas (22 million standard cubic feet) to be produced by the project (CT 617). The Specific Plan also establishes a detailed, phased drilling schedule. Phase I is "Exploratory Drilling," which is expected to last three months and will involve one well with a 175 -foot high rig (CT 618). Phase II is "Delineation Drilling," which adds three more wells and will last approximately one year (CT 619). At the end of that year, the operator has the sole discretion to evaluate economic feasibility and determine (with no additional administrative review by the City) whether to proceed with Phase III ("Development and Operation"), i.e., "fall field development," which is the drilling of another 31 wells with a 140- foot rig over a six year period (CT 619). The Specific Plan includes a detailed "project schedule" for the Operator's discretionary Phase III development (CT 619, et seq.), which sets forth the precise hours of operation and number of days required for each drilling operation: "Continuous active drilling is expected to last for approximately six years. Thereafter, drilling, re - drilling and work -overs of three to four existing wells per year will be required ....". (CT 620.) "During all drilling activities, the drill rig and associated equipment, lights, personnel, etc. will be operating 24 hours per day.... During re -drills and work -overs, the drill rig may operate 24 hours per day." (CT 621.) 21 3� of- 7�/ The Specific Plan also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (M1VlRP) that is not limited to monitoring. Instead, the MAW sets forth additional project level operational data and mitigation measures with considerable detail. (See, e.g., Measure 1, requiring "orifice plates" for gas liquid piping more than 2 inches (CT 626); see, also, Measures 2 and 6 (which provide for relocation of "the odorant facility" on the CPF and change the BIR requirements for the removal of a 217,000 barrel oil shipping tank (cf. 626-627, 677 with CT 930-1).) These provisions of the Specific Plan are not planning -level legislative acts. Decisions about project -level detail are, by definition, "adjudicative" because they "implement the steps necessary to carry out [the] legislative purpose." (Citizens for Planning Responsibly, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 367, citing Dunkl, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at 399-400.) The imposition of conditions of approval such as these is a quintessential administrative function. (See e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 385 (a municipality's decision to add conditions to the grant of a zoning permit is an "adjudicative" act).) 5. The Specific Plan Usurps the City's Adiudicatory Decision -Malang Powers. It could be argued that the inclusion of project -level detail in a specific plan, standing alone, . renders the plan an adjudicative act. However, the Court need not focus on this specific question because this Initiative goes much. further. Having included the project -level detail in the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan then compels the issuance of discretiongm administrative permits provided that any application submitted by Venoco is consistent with the Specific Plan. This provision, along with several others, plainly demonstrates that the effect of the Initiative is to allow Venoco to avoid any review of its project by the City —now and in perpetuity. This is an obvious abuse of the initiative process. 22 a. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Compel the City to Issue a CDP, and it Cannot Grant Venoco Any Vested Right to Develop. The Initiative requires any person wishing to undertake development to obtain a CDP under CMC § 14.48 (CT 614, Initiative, §V, A). It is well settled that the issuance of a CDP is an administrative, adjudicatory act. (Patterson v. Central Coast Regional Com. (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 833, 841 ("Patterson"); McAllister v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 953; Pacifica Corp. v. City of Camarillo (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 168, 176.) As explained above, the City's CDP/development plan process requires the evaluation of the application by numerous City departments before the project is presented to the decision -makers. The application is presented to the City decision -makers during a public hearing, at which they exercise their discretion to deny, approve or conditionally approve the project (CT 1052-1055 [CMC, §§14.68.010, et seq.]; CT 1050 [CMC, § 14.48.040(4)]). The Initiative usurps that entire administrative process with the following provision: "For any development application submitted to the City that is consistent with the development regulations and standards contained in this Specific Plan, the ON Council shall make the following findings and issue a Coastal Development Permit: "(1) That the development project conforms to the General Plan and the California Coastal Act. "(2) That the development project is consistent with the requirements of this Specific Plan. "(3) That the development project conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of the California Coastal Act." (CT 615 [Initiative §V, B] emphasis added.) 23 Because the issuance of a CDP is an administrative act, the electorate does not have the power to compel an agency to take such action by initiative. Moreover, the three findings set forth in Specific Plan Section V, B would not entitle any -applicant to the issuance of any discretionary permit. As this Court confirmed in Dore v. County of Ventura (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 320, 328, "[c]ompliance with zoning laws does not necessarily entitle one to a permit." (Id. at 328.) Where, as here, a permit is subject to discretionary review.. . ". . . such review rests in the sound discretion of the. administrative body.... In reviewing a proposed . project, the administrative body is entitled to consider subjective matters such as the spiritual, physical, aesthetic and monetary effect the project may have on the surrounding neighborhood" (Id. at 329, citations omitted.) The Initiative cannot lawfully avoid the subjective discretionary review process by the expedient of compelling the issuance of a CDP. The compulsory issuance of a CDP was obviously part of Venoco's attempt to use the Initiative to gain vested rights to develop the Project. The Development Agreement would have expressly accomplished that purpose. (Gov. Code, §65864.) However, even though the trial court properly struck the Development Agreement (see fn. 3, supra), the trial court still found that the Initiative "grants Venoco a vested right to use the [CPF] for extended reach oil and natural gas drilling, regulated only by the development regulations set forth in the Specific Plan" (CT 1542)._ That holding cannot be affirmed. Where neither a development agreement nor a vesting tentative map is involved, vested- rights can be created only after the administrative permit process is complete and a "property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government ...." (Avco Community Developers, Inc. 24 13 5 °7` 7 7 v. South Coast Regional Com. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 791, emphasis added.) A "permit issued by the government" is an administrative, not a legislative, act. Therefore, any attempt by the electorate to create vested rights by compelling the issuance of a discretionary permit is invalid. b. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Make, or Compel an Agency to Make, Administrative Findings. Section V, B of the Initiative not only states that the City "shall" issue the CDP, it substitutes three findings in place of the extensive discretionary findings required for the issuance of a CDP/development plan by the City (CT 615, 1052 [CMC, §14.68.0301 and CT 1050 [CMC, § 14.48.040]). It then compels the City to make those three findings for any application for a project which is "consistent with the development regulations and standards" contained in the Specific Plan. These provisions impermissibly intrude into the City's administrative powers for at least three reasons: First, Appellant recognizes that the act of making consistency findings for legislative -level programs is a legislative act. (Citizens for Planning Responsibly, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 377 (findings concerning whether zoning is. consistent with a general plan).) Due process requirements of notice and hearing do not apply to legislative findings because, "[w]ith respect to legislative acts, there is no more advance assurance that a legislative body will act by conscientiously applying consistent standards than there is with respect to voters." (Arnel,-supra, 28 Cal.3d at 519-520, citing Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. (1976) 426 U.S. 668; see, also, DeVita, supra, 9 CalAth 763, 786.) However, the act of making consistency findings at the administrative _level is an administrative act. (Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. Turlock City Council (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 584 (findings and 25 41a OJ ? V- decision regarding whether a development project is consistent with a local general plan are administrative); Andrews v. City of San Bernardino (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 459 (findings for approval of a final redevelopment plan are administrative); Dunkl, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at 390-391 (initiative which made certain findings required by an earlier ordinance, thereby reversing the agency's findings, was administrative). These cases settle the rule that the electorate is not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of an agency with respect to administrative matters (Id. at 402). Section V, B of the Initiative compels precisely such substitution of judgment by requiring the City to make certain findings as long as a "development application" is consistent with the Specific Plan. Second, a compelled finding in administrative matters violates due process. In Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, the Supreme Court held that, when an agency acts in. an "adjudicatory" capacity, due process "requires that both appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard be given to persons whose property interests may be significantly affected." (Id. at 610.) That is so because: "... [r]esolution of these issues involves the exercise of judgment, and the careful balancing of conflicting interests, the hallmark of the adjudicative process. The expressed opinions of the affected landowners might very well be persuasive to those public officials who make the decisions, and affect the outcome of the ... process." (Id. at 615.) (See, also, Scott v. City oflndian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541 (due process principles apply to the issuance of an administrative, conditional use permit); Wiltshire, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d 296, 304 and Topanga Assn. For A Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Ca1.3d 506, 517 (award of special use permit is adjudicatory, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard).) 26 Y1 4 71/ Where an initiative does not respect the requirement for administrative due process, such an Initiative is unlawful because "[i]n the exercise of that electoral right, there is obviously no opportunity for the notice and hearing and factual findings required in the adjudicatory process." (Wiltshire, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at 304.) Section V, B of the Initiative does require a hearing on any application for a CDP under CMC §14.48. However, in light of the other provisions of the Initiative, the hearing requirement is much like the old Wild West rule, which provided that "every defendant was entitled to a fair trial before he was hanged." The hearing provided by the Initiative is meaningless because the City decision -makers are not entitled to consider any of the evidence it receives during the hearing as to whether the issuance of the CDP advances the health, safety and welfare of the City. As long as the CDP is "consistent" with the Specific Plan, issuance is preordained by the Initiative. Third, the Initiative also dispenses with any requirement for evidence to support the compulsory findings. Under the Initiative, if the City Council determines that the application is consistent with the Specific Plan, then the Council must make the finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan/LCP and Coastal Act -- even if there is no substantial evidence to support that finding. (CT 614-615.) That provision violates the rule that adjudicatory factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence. In the area of findings, there is again a difference between legislative and administrative acts. When an agency issues an administrative land use permit, the agency is required to "bridge the analytic gap between fhe raw evidence and ultimate decision or order." (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v.. County of Los Angeles, supra 11 Cal.3d at 515; Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) The same requirement does not apply to legislative acts. 27 ia a�) 7�/ "A court cannot inquire into the wisdom of a legislative act or review the merits of a local government's policy decisions. ;Judicial review of a legislative act under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is .limited to determining whether the public agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, entirely without evidentiary support, or procedurally unfair." (Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1208.) If initiatives were allowed to compel adjudicative findings, there would be no assurance that land use decisions would ever comply with the legislative policies that' govern all permit -level decision-making. It is clear the City would not have the power to adopt an ordinance that removed both agency discretion and the requirement that findings be made only on the basis of substantial evidence. Because the City lacks this power, the electorate lacks the power as well. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 604-610 ("Associated Home Builders") (an ordinance proposed by initiative must be one that the agency could itself enact); see also DeVita, supra, 9 CalAth at 775.) C. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfu Transform Discretionary Acts Into Ministerial Acts. In a fiirther effort to remove any and all administrative discretionary decision-making authority from the City, Section V (C) of the Initiative states: "For purposes of compliance with [CEQA], in issuing the [CDP] and all subsequent land use and building permits that are consistent with the development regulations and standards contained in this Specific Plan, ...the City will be performing a ministerial act for which no additional environmental analysis will be required...." (CT 615 [§V (C)].) This provision is facially invalid as a matter of law. M: A "ministerial act" is defined as one in which "there is no room for the exercise of any discretion" by the agency. (Short; v. Barkley (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 873, 877.) These decisions are "essentially automatic based on whether certain fixed standards and objective measurements have been met." (Sustainability of Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund v. County of Solano Dept. of Resource Management (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1359). Under these definitions, the issuance of some lower -level permits are often deemed ministerial. (See, e.g., C -Y Development Co. v. City of Redlands (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 926, 934 and Health First v. March .Joint Powers Authority (2009) 174 Cal.AppAth 1135, 1143 (building permits); Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.AppAth 543, 565 (certificate of compliance).) As a matter of law, however, the issuance of a CDP is not a ministerial act, because it is an act which requires the considerable exercise of an agency's discretion. (See, Pub. Res. Code §30624.9 (classifying a CDP as a "discretionary approval"); Patterson, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at 841; McAllister v. California Coastal Com'n, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at 953; Pacifica Corp. v. City of Camarillo, supra, 149 Cal.App.3d 168, 176.) Allowing the electorate to transform discretionary acts into ministerial acts would turn land use permitting on its head. While the duty . to perform a ministerial act can be judicially enforced by mandate (see, e.g., C -Y Development Co. v. City of Redlands, supra, 137 Ca1.App.3d at 934 (mandate will issue to compel the issuance of a ministerial permit)), the issuance of a CDP (because it is a discretionary act) cannot be so compelled However, this rule is not categorically applied either. If an agency retains some discretion in issuing a lower level permit, the permit is not ministerial. (See, e.g., Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach (2007) 147 Cal.AppAth 1375, 1384 (issuance of grading permit was not ministerial because it required CEQA review); Hafen v. County of Orange (2005) 128 Cal.AppAth 133, 145 (grading permit was not ministerial because it required the issuance of a discretionary site development plan).) 29 '/ `7'� , ��z by mandate. The City does not have the power to convert discretionary acts into ministerial acts. (See, e.g., Friends of Westwood,. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (court found major building permit discretionary despite city's classification of building permit as ministerial); Day v. City of Glendale (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 817 (court found major grading permit discretionary despite city's ministerial classification).) Therefore, the electorate does not have that power either. (Associated Home Builders, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 604-610; DeVita, supra, 9 Ca1.4th at 775.) d. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Sidestep the Requirement that Discretionary Permits be Issued for Modifications to Venoco's Existing Facility. As noted above, Respondent Venoco operates its existing CPF under a development plan issued by the City in 1969. When Venoco applied to the City for approval of its new development plan, Venoco described the new project as "augmenting certain facilities by installing new facilities and modifying others" (CT 652, 655) and the City confirmed. that the modifications that were to be accomplished to the existing facilities would require an amendment to the CPF's underlying development plan (CT 637). The Initiative blurs the distinction between the existing CPF and the Project submitted to the voters. The Initiative defines the CPF as the "existing Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facility ..." (CT 612), and states that the existing facilities will "continue to be governed by the provisions of the City's M -CD zoning requirements" (CT 618 [§B(3)]). However, the Specific Plan authorizes operations under the existing CPF as a permitted use (CT 614 [§IV(A)]). The Specific Plan also includes as permitted uses the "[p]rocessing and [t]ransmitting oil and natural gas utilizing both existing and new facilities" (CT 616 [§VI, (5)]) and. "[u]tilizing existing pipelines to transport oil and natural gas" (CT 618 30 45 ff y [§VI, (9)]). Thus, the Initiative appears to authorize modifications to existing CPF facilities without any administrative discretionary review by the City. For the reasons set forth in the preceding sections, this blanket characterization is also invalid. e. The Specific Plan Cannot Lawfully Allow Modifications to the Proiect Without Further Discretionary Review by the City. Finally, there is the question of what changes might occur to the Paredon Project should the Initiative be approved. Here as well, the Initiative not only intrudes into the City's administrative powers, it sidesteps them completely. In interpreting an initiative measure, the Court construes the language "in the context of the [initiative] as a whole and the overall statutory scheme." (In re Damien Y. (2008) 163 Ca1.App.4th 16, 21 (citations omitted.)) Section M of the Specific Plan states:. "Development regulations and standards set forth in this Specific Plan may be modified upon Operator's request if it is determined by the City Council, after a duly noticed public hearing, that: "A. Imposition of one or more of the applicable development standards set forth herein would prevent or substantially frustrate achievement of development entitlements otherwise authorized by this Specific Plan; `B. Modified standards will achieve a high quality of project design consistent with the intent of this Specific Plan; "C. Approval of the requested modification will not be contrary to, or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Specific Plan, nor with the goals, .policies and programs of the General Plan; or x(3/1 "D. Approval of the requested modification will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or general welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements located adjacent to, or within the same vicinity as the property for which said modification is granted." (CT 624-625, emphasis added.) If the Specific Plan were properly limited to legislative policies and standards, Section XI might be limited to legislative acts. However, as the trial court correctly found, the "regulations and. standards" in the Specific Plan define "in detail the Paredon Project as the prescribed use" (CT 1549). Section XI thus governs modifications that are made in the future to the Project: i.e., changes to the project and permit level detail which comprise the administrative aspects of the Specific Plan. Modifications to the Project could result in development far more extensive and intensive than the development presented to the electorate. For example, the proposed final EIR for the 2005 application disclosed eleven unmitigated significant environmental impacts. (CT 848-852.) As it is, the Initiative does not mitigate these impacts. Yet, if Venoco wished to drill even more wells, or to place more 140 -foot, 24 hour -a -day, drill rigs on the project site, Section XI (in combination with the other administrative aspects of the Specific Plan) would allow Venoco to argue that it had a right to do so because the provisions of the Specific Plan "substantially frustrated achievement of [its] development entitlements" (CT 624 [§XI, subd. (A)]). There is no question that such permit modifications mormally would require discretionary adjudicatory review, by the issuing agency. Not so under the Initiative, since all permits are deemed to be ministerial. Moreover, Sections XI A and B are impermissibly vague. (See, e.g., Citizens for ,lobs, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at 1335-1336.) Section XI, A and B do not set forth any objective criteria for the ministerial determination of whether a proposed modification would be necessary to avoid substantial 0A Y7 4 9y frustration of Venoco's "development entitlements" or to "achieve a high quality of project design." 8 On its face, Section C appears to require that any modification be consistent with the Specific Plan and GP/LCP. However, Section M allows Venoco to modify the Project based on only one of the four proposed findings (i.e., the word "or" follows subd. (C)). Thus, Venoco could compel the City to grant a modification even if the modification violated the GP/LCP. Under California law, development which violates the GP/LCP is unlawful (see §D, infra). Finally, although Section D purports to acknowledge the City's police power, the other provisions of the Specific Plan strip the City of all of its police powers because the Specific Plan does not allow the City to exercise its administrative discretion. For all of the reasons set forth in this Argument (§V(A)), the Specific Plan is not entitled to categorical, or any other, treatment as a legislative act. It includes extensive administrative provisions intentionally drafted to allow Venoco-to avoid any adjudicative, discretionary review by the City and to develop its property — now and in perpetuity - according to Venoco's own discretion. Each of the challenged provisions must be declared invalid. B. This Initiative Violates CEOA Because It Compels the Approval of the Project and the Issuance -of a CDP Without CEUA Review. Appellants respectfully submit that the Court must also disregard labels when examining the question of whether the Initiative violates CEQA. That is so because, while the submission 'of a voter -sponsored initiative to the electorate is specifically exempt from CEQA (Title 14, Cal. s The use of the word "entitlements" in Section XI, A exacerbates the problem because, to the extent that the Initiative purports to grant any "entitlement," it is void as an administrative act. (See §V(A)(5)(a), supra.) 33 Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"), §15378(b)(3); Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 45:8), this exemption is appropriate only if the initiative is pro early limited to le islative acts. In a normal case, if the voters approve a general plan amendment by initiative, the agency thereafter will conduct administrative discretionary proceedings regarding all permits to be issued under the general plan amendment, including CEQA review. However, as has been demonstrated above, this Initiative is not legislative. The Initiative defines the Project .as the permitted use, and removes all of the City's administrative discretion with respect to the issuance of Project permits. The Initiative also attempts to usurp all of the City's administrative discretion with respect to compliance with CEQA: "For purposes of compliance with fCEQA1, in issuing the CDP and all subsequent land use and building permits that are consistent with the development regulations and standards contained in this Specific Plan, and in compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program described in this Specific Plan, the City will be perming a ministerial act for which no additional environmental analysis will be required in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(1)." (CT 615 [Initiative, §V, (C)], emphasis added.) The cumulative effect of this and the other administrative aspects of the Specific Plan would compel the City t, o approve the Paredon Project CDP and all other project permits with no discretionary CEQA review. That would violate CEQA. Under CEQA, a "project" is defined as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Pub. Res. Code, §21065.) There is no question that the Paredon Project described by the Specific Plan, coupled with the compulsory issuance of the CDP, is' a 34 '{tel 07- %y "project" under CEQA. There is also no question that the approval : of a project, such as issuance of a CDP, involves discretionary agency action. (Pub. Res. Code §§21065, 21080(a); Patterson, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d 833, 841; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los .Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.AppAth 268 (City issuance of CDP and related approvals required CEQA compliance).) The City would not have the power to approve a project without complying with CEQA. Therefore, the electorate does not have that power either - directly or indirectly. (Associated Horne Builders, supra, 18 Ca1.3d at pp. 604-610; DeVita, supra, 9 CalAth at 775; Sarter v. Siskiyou County, supra, 42 Cal.App. at 538.) The question of whether a project complies with CEQA is not a "ministerial" decision, as stated in Section V, C of the Initiative. The City's determination of whether a project complies with CEQA is a discretionary decision, and one which factors greatly in the City's discretionary decision about whether to deny, approve, or conditionally approve an application for a CDP. "Mhere the agency possesses enough authority (that is, discretion) to deny or modify the proposed project on the basis of environment consequences the EIR might conceivably uncover, the permit process is `discretionary' within the meaning of CEQA." (Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles, supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at 272.) As noted above, the City complied with its obligations under. CEQA with regard to Venoco's 2005 application. Once Venoco had submitted its application for development plan approval, the City prepared an EIR. (CT 644, 659; CT 805, et seq.; and see CT 1141-1146 [City's CEQA Guidelines].) 35 50 4 7� CEQA review provides valuable information to both the agency and the public. The Courts have repeatedly stated that informed decision- making and public participation are fundamental purposes of CEQA process. (Citizens for Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cai.3d 553, 571.574; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Ca. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 386, 376, 404, 406.) If a project may cause significant environmental impacts, an EIR is mandatory. (Pub. Res. Code §§21000, et seq. and 21151(a).) Public agencies are required to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of projects they approve whenever it is feasible. (Pub. Res. Code §21081; CEQA Guidelines §§15021(a), 15091; see, also, Pub. Res. Code §§21151,21002,21002.1(b).) An important step in the CEQA process is the formulation and approval of mitigation monitoring and enforcement measures. The creation of these mitigation measures is also an administrative, discretionary decision. (Ocean Harbor House Homeowners Assn v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 215, 242.) The extent to which Venoco would usurp the City's administrative powers with respect to CEQA is graphically demonstrated by the, manner in which the Initiative disregards the ETR prepared for Venoco's previous development application. The City's Proposed Final EIR. for the Paredon Project set forth numerous mitigation measures, including mitigation for hazards, onshore biological resources, air quality, marine mammals, onshore water resources, geological resources, noise, fire protection, cultural resources, 'recreational resources and traffic. The Initiative disregards those discretionary measures, and instead includes its own NINIRP .(CT 626-663). Generally speaking, the N4N4 2P is much less protective of the environment than are the measures proposed in the EIR (compare generally CT 848-872 [ETR mitigation measures] with CT 67-72 [the Initiative NWIRP]). W-1 �sr off- 7s� By way of illustration, the MMRP does not require third party audits of the CPF and pipeline facilities set forth under ETR R.1-3 (CT 848). No pre -construction survey of the site under 013.1-1a, lb and lc by a City - approved wildlife biologist is required (CT 868.) The NUARP does not include EIR measures for dust control, mufflers, fugitive emission controls and vapor recovery for the 2 new tanks. (See CT 867 [AQ.1-1; AQ.1-2]; CT 854 [AQ.2-2 and AQ.3-3].) The Initiative does not prohibit construction during the pupping season at the seal rookery and does not include any of the other measures identified in the EIR to protect the marine mammals.' (CT 856 [MM 4.2].) The NRMRP does not include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, a drainage plan or require that well cellars be lined. (See CT 858-859 [OWR.2-1; OWR.2-2 and OWR.3-1].) Unlike the EIR, no mitigation measures to reduce impacts on cultural resources or transportation are included in the Initiative. (CT 864-865 [CR.1-1 and CR.1-2]; CT 861 [T.1-1 and T.2-1].) Essentially, Venoco "cherry -picked" mitigation measures to include only measures and language that Venoco favored. The initiative also eliminates any administrative discretion with respect to alternatives. Before an agency issues any permit for a project subject to CEQA, the agency must consider feasible alternatives. (Friends of the Old Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1387.) CEQA gives an agency the discretion to adopt a project alternative if the agency finds the alternative less environmentally damaging than the proposed project. (See, e.g., California Native Plant ' Specifically, the MMRP does not include the following marine mammal measures: MMA -1, reduction or elimination of sound in the frequency spectrum of 20 Hz to 20 kHz or greater at the Rookery, MM.5-1, investigation and reduction of startle response from seals at the Rookery; NW.5-2, prohibiting commencement of drilling during the pupping season; MM.6-1, vibration measurements at the Rookery; and MM.7-1, assessment and treatment of affected marine mammals in the event of an oil spill. (CT . 856-858, 848-849.) 37 Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001; Pub. Res. Code §§21002-21002.1, 21004; CEQA Guidelines §1:5002(a).) Under the City's Proposed Final EIR, three alternatives to the project were reviewed in addition to the no project alternative: (1) drilling from an existing offshore platform, (2) drilling from a site located farther inland and (3) drilling using a shorter drilling rig from the existing CPF. (CT 3:836- 838.) However, the Initiative sidesteps any alternatives analysis, and authorizes the Project — and only the Project - at the existing Venoco site. For all these reasons, the Initiative violates CEQA. The Initiative is not limited to legislative acts, but instead defines the Project as the prescribed use and compels the issuance of permits with no CEQA review in violation of California law. C. The Initiative Violates the Constitution Because It Names a Private Party to Perform Functions and Have Powers and Duties. The Initiative also violates another Constitutional limitation on the electorate's power. California Constitution article II, section 12 provides: "No amendment to the Constitution, and no statute proposed to the electors by the Legislature or initiative, that names any individual to hold any office, or names or identifies any private corporation to perform ani function.or to have any power or duty, may be submitted to the electors or have any effect." (Id., emphasis added.) The Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition expressly named Venoco: ",Venoco has worked with the CitE of Carpinteria to develop plans for utilizing state-of-the-art technology to access offshore oil and natural gas reserves off the coast of Carpinteria, 38 If anoroved. Venoco would be authorized to use a safe and clean technology called extended reach drilling to access offshore oil and natural eas reserves from Venoco's existing onshore facilitY." (CT 31, emphasis added.) In the Initiative itself, the drafters were careful to use the word "Operator," rather than "Venoco." However, as noted above, the Court must construe the language "in the context of the [initiative] as a whole and the overall statutory scheme." (In re Damien V., supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at 21 (citations omitted).) Construing the word "Operator" in the context of the Initiative as a whole compels the conclusion that the " erator" is Venoco. Venoco and prior owners have operated the existing CPF since the 1960s (CT 896) and the existing facility is an integral component of each part of the Initiative. The General Plan amendments state that a "portion of the existing facility is planned ... " for extended reach drilling (CT 597 ["Subarea 6. . The Bluffs"]). The LCP Amendments also refer to the "existing facility" (CT 604 [para. 11(a)]), as do the amendments to the Mineral Resources section (CT 605 [para. g]), the Visual Resources section (CT .606) [para. 58(a)]) of the Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Element, and the Hazardous Materials section of the Safety Element (CT 607). The Specific Plan includes operations under the existing CPF as a permitted use (CT 612,614, [§N(A)]). The Project includes "[p]rocessmg and [t]ransmitting oil and natural gas utilizing both existing and new facilities" (CT 616 [§VI, (5)]), and "[u]tilizing existing pipelines to transport oil and natural gas" (CT 618 [§VI, (9)]). Thus, there is no question that the Initiative "names" Venoco to "Perform functions" and have "powers and duties" under California Constitution article II, section 12. As Operator of the existing CPF,. the Initiative grants Venoco entitlements to develop the project and it affords 39 Venoco special protections (i.e., the issuance of a CDP on a ministerial basis, exemption from CEQA review). This creates a constitutional violation. (See, e.g., Pala, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at 584-587.) Moreover, if there were any doubt about the drafter's intent to grant Venoco -specific rights, that doubt would be dispelled by the drafter's failure to change the word "Venoco" to "Operator" in Section 7: "In the event (1) the California Coastal Commission finds any inconsistency between this Act and the California Coastal Act, and (2) Venoco agrees that the California Coastal Commission's decision is proper-, then the City Council shall amend this Act so as to remove any inconsistency." (CT 632 [§ 7(b)].) This provision, of course, not only violates Article H, section 12 of the Constitution, but the Coastal Act as well. The Coastal Act establishes the procedures by which the City may obtain an approval of an amendment to its certified LCP (LCPA) from the Coastal Commission. (Pub. Res. Code, §§30000 et seq. and Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., §§1.3001, et seq.) So far as pertinent here, if the City submits a LCPA, and the Commission deems the LCPA inconsistent with the Coastal Act, the City has the discretion to either abandon the LCPA or amend it to achieve consistency. (Pub. Res. Code, §§30512-30514.) The electorate does not have the power to interpose Venoco's consent as a precondition to the exercise of the City's discretion. D. The Initiative is Invalid Because it is Inconsistent with the General Plan. )While the Specific Plan may include the most glaring invalidities within the Initiative, it is not its only legal defect. The Initiative's proposed amendments to the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan are invalid as well. Every city must adopt a general plan as the "constitution" for all physical development within the city. (Gov. Code, §65300; Napa Citizens 40 515 of �y for Honest. Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 355.) Because the City of Carpinteria is located in the Coastal Zone, its "constitution" is set forth in its GP/LCP (CT 1205). A general plan includes mandatory and optional elements which must "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." (Gov. Code, §§65302, 65300.5.)0 Consistency is achieved where a policy or project furthers the overarching objectives and policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment. (Corona -Norco Unified School Dist. v. City of Corona (1993) 17 Cal.AppAth 985, 994.) Inconsistency occurs when a policy or project conflicts with a general plan policy that is fundamental, mandatory, and clear. (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-1342 ("FUTURE").) "The consistency doctrine has been described as 'the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infuse[s] the concept of planned growth with the force of law...."' (Corona Norco Unified School Dist., supra, at 994.) Two types of consistency are required. Horizontal consistency refers to consistency within general plan elements (Gov. Code, §65300.5). Vertical consistency refers to consistency between the general plan and lower level planning documents or between those planning documents and land use permits. (Gov. Code, §§65454 and 65860; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 553, 572-573.) It is well settled that initiative measures must be completely consistent with the general plan: 10 The City's GP/LCP confirms that "[a]ll of the General Plan elements are interrelated." (CT 1207.) The overarching goal of the GP/LCP is: "...to preserve the essential character of our small beach town, its family-oriented residential neighborhoods, its unique visual and natural resources and its open, rural surroundings while enhancing recreational, cultural and economic opportunities for our citizens." (CT 1205.) M 56W 7y "We emphasize that an initiative amendment must. conform to all the formal requirements imposed on general plan amendments enacted by the legislative body. The amendment itself may not be internally inconsistent, or cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent (Gov. Code, §65300.5), or to become insufficiently comprehensive ( Id.., §65300), ... When matters of substance rather than procedure are concerned, courts will not employ a double standard for initiative amendments and general plan amendments enacted by the legislative body." (De Vita, supra, 9 Cal.4th at 796, fn. 12, emphasis added.) It is also well settled that a single inconsistent general plan policy is sufficient to invalidate a general plan amendment or a specific plan. (See FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1341-1342; Gov Code, §§65300.5 and 65454.) The Initiative creates numerous inconsistencies, both horizontal and vertical, and attempts to cure them with a "precedence" clause which is void on its face. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the GP/LCP must be invalidated. 1. The Initiative Creates Horizontal Inconsistencies in the General Plan by Exempting the Proiect from Certain Policies Without Resolving the Inconsistencies Created by Those Exemptions. The Initiative would amend the City's existing GP/LCP Land Use Element, Community Design Element, Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Element, Safety Element and Noise Element in sixteen -places (CT 597-608). Many of the amendments to the GP/LCP follow a common format — they simply exempt the Project from the policies set forth in the GP/LCP. For example, Objective CDS6-2 of the GP/LCP requires that the City "[e]nsure that development is controlled to avoid impacts to significant 42 viewsheds, vistas, and view corridors." The Initiative would amend Objective CDS 6-2 to provide that "[e]xcent for development related to coastal dependent industry at the [existing CPF], [the City] ensure that development is controlled to avoid impacts to significant viewsheds, vistas, and view corridors." (CT 599.) GP/LCP Policy CDS6-e mandates that "[e]xterior and interior lighting of development projects shall be low intensity and designed to minimize direct view of light sources and diffusers, and to minimize halo and spillover effects." The Initiative adds the following clause before the existing policy: "Except for development related to coastal dependent industry at the [CPF] ..." (CT 602.) (See also, CT 606, where the same language is used to create an exemption from the visual resources requirement of the City's Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Element.) These "short-cut" amendments are not permitted because - on their face - they create conflicts with the policies from which the particular use would be exempt. (FUTURE, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at 1341-1342; Napa Citizens for .honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-379.) Other proposed amendments to the GP/LCP violate the consistency requirement in a different way. For example, the Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Element establishes a comprehensive set of mandatory objectives, policies and implementation policies designed to protect Carpinteria's natural resources. (CT 1247-1248, 1262.) Harbor seals and their rookeries and hauling grounds -on the rocky beaches adjacent to the CPF are among the most unique and precious of Carpinteria's biological resources. (CT 1248-50, 1264.) The harbor seal habitat is designated as environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA), which requires a special level of protection. (CT 1248-50, 1264.) Mandatory policies include OSC-1b ("Prohibit activities, including development, that could damage or destroy 43 ESHA"), OSC-1 Implementation Policy 8 ("Regulate all development... adjacent to ESHA... to prevent adverse impacts on habitat resources...") and OSC-5a ("Harbor Seal Hauling Grounds should not be altered or disturbed by recreational, industrial, or any other uses.") -(CT 1250, 1252, 1262.) The Initiative leaves these mandatory policies intact, but at the same time amends a single implementation policy in the Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Element, as shown in underline: "Implementation Policy 22. Protect the Harbor Seal Hauling Ground by implementation of the following measures: "a. Ensure any proposed use or development adjacent to the hauling grounds is of a type, intensity, design and location, that minimizes potential impacts to the harbor seals. "b. Prohibit development and activity that could result in noise, vibration or other disturbance that could result in degradation of the seal hauling grounds or discourage its ongoing use. Activities related to the Mloration, development, production, gathering and transmission of oil and natural gas from onshore and offshore oil fields from an existing oil and natural gas facilily using extended reach drilling shall be permitted duringhaul out periods." (CT 605.) This provision plainly creates a horizontal inconsistency: various provisions of the GPILCP prohibit all development that has even the potential to disturb the seal's habitat, while the Initiative not only authorizes such development, it expressly allows drilling activities to occur during the most environmentally sensitive period, which is the seal haul out or pupping season. (CT 605.) 44 cf- 7� Moreover, in at least one place, the -Initiative expressly acknowledges that it would allow development inconsistent with the GP/LCP. GP/LCP Objective CDS6-2 mandates the protection of long and short range views from the Bluffs, upon which the existing CPF is located. The initiative first creates an "except for" exemption from those policies, and then expressly states: "Infrastructure necessary to support the exploration, development, production, gathering and transmission of oil and natural gas from onshore and offshore oil and natural gas from the onshore and offshore oil fields from the existing [CPF] ,that would be inconsistent with the following implementation policies shall be permitted." (CT 599, emphasis added.) This attempt to expressly authorize development which is inconsistent with the GP/LCP violates Government Code section 65300.5. The legislative aspects of the Specific Plan suffer from the same infirmities. The Specific Plan replaces existing GP/LCP regulations with development standards and regulations less stringent and expressly designed to accommodate the Project. For example, the Specific Plan authorizes. continuous, round-the-clock active drilling for six years with maintenance and repair drilling for years thereafter (CT 620-621). Drilling is allowed year-round unless Venoco, in its discretion, decides to stop because employees have observed an adequate "startle response" in the harbor seals (CT 620). That provision of the Specific Plan is inconsistent with General Plan Objective OSC-5 and its supporting policies which mandate the protection of the harbor seal hauling groundsfrom human disturbance and adjacent industrial activities by absolutely prohibiting development that could result in noise, vibration or other disturbances, particularly during the pupping season (CT 1262-1263). 45 �o *i 7�1 Courts have regularly invalidated proposed general plan or specific pian amendments that attempt to relax or eliminate, otherwise applicable general plan policies for a particular project or site. In Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Ca1.App.4th 777, 786, a specific plan was amended to accommodate a particular development project. In holding that the specific plan amendments were inconsistent with the general plan, the court stated: "Endangered Habitats contends the amendment's new regulations for this project are also inconsistent with the general plan, because they relax specific plan regulations otherwise applicable to the project. Right again. The amendment gives the developer an unacceptable freebie. In effect, it exempts this project from specific pian regulations on tree preservation, grading, and open space, and substitutes new regulations that are less stringent. This, of course, directly contradicts the general plan policy that all new development must comply with all specific plan policies. Consistency requires more than incantation, and a county cannot articulate a policy in its general plan and then approve a conflicting project." (Id., 131 Cal.App.4th at 789, citations omitted, emphasis added.) The Specific Plan suffers from the same flaws identified in Endangered Habitats League. It exempts development at the Venoco site from otherwise applicable GP/LCP policies, replacing them with either relaxed policies unique to the Paredon Project or with nothing at all.. These "freebies" are designed solely for Venoco's benefit and are.. -plainly inconsistent with the comprehensive policies of the GP/LCP. 2. The Initiative Creates Vertical Inconsistencies Because it Does Not Amend the Carpinteria Municipal Code. During the administrative processing of Venoco's 2005 application for approval of a development plan, Venoco acknowledged that the Project 46 would require numerous amendments to the CMC (i.e., Zoning Text Amendments ("ZTA")). Venoco submitted the required ZTA (CT 797, 801). The CMC sections which required amendment included, but were, not limited to, CMC, §14.30.030 (to allow for onshore drilling of offshore oil and gas resources) (CT 1419), CMC, §14.30.070 (to allow development to exceed 30 feet in height) (CT 1421), CMC §14.30.060 (setbacks) (CT 1420), and CMC, §14.30.090 (landscaping, screening, etc.) (CT 1421). The ZTA would have also addressed whether extended reach drilling should be allowed by right under CMC, §14.30.03(1) or only through the issuance of a CUP (CT 789). The Initiative does not propose any amendments to the City's CMC. As a result, the Specific Plan is inconsistent with the CMC in each of the areas set forth in the preceding paragraph. It is thus invalid because it creates vertical inconsistencies between the GP/LCP and the Zoning Ordinance (Gov. Code, §§65454, 65860). 3. Inconsistencies Cannot Lawfully Be Resolved by the Use of a Precedence Clause. The drafters of the Initiative were obviously aware that special treatment for the Venoco development created both horizontal and vertical inconsistencies. In an attempt to solve that problem, they added the following provision: "State law requires that zoning ordinances must be consistent with an adopted specific plan. To the extent that any provision of this Specific Plan is inconsistent... with the requirements of the Carpinteria Municipal Code or any rules, regulations or official policies of City; the provisions of this Specific Plan shall govern.. Further, to the extent that ani provision of the Carpinteria Municipal Code or any rule, regulation or off acial policy oQty frustrates the pyMose and intent of this Speci is Plan, those inconsistent provisions o f the Carpinteria Municipal Code or rules, regulations 47 �' 4 7Y or official policies of the City shall be superseded by this Speci c Plan." (CT 612, emphasis added.) This clause is void. (Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698 ("Sierra Club").) In Sierra Club, the Board of Supervisors recognized the potential for conflict between its open space element and its land use element, but chose to resolve through the use of a "precedence clause." The precedence clause stated: "If any conflict exists between the adopted open space and conservation element and this land use element, this element should take precedence..." (.Id. at 703.) However, because no element of the general plan can be legally subordinate to any other element, the Sierra Club court held that the precedence clause was void and required that conflicts be resolved within the general plan itself. (Id.. at 708.) Notably, the Sierra Club court held that precedence clauses. may not be used to achieve either horizontal or vertical consistency. (Id. at 708, citing Gov. Code §§65300.5 and 65860.) The precedence clause at issue in this case is no different than the clause at issue in Sierra Club. Any conflicting "rule, regulation or official policy of the City" would be superseded by the Initiative. (CT 612.) That would violate every principle of Land Use and Planning Law and entirely undo the requirement for consistency. Therefore, the precedence clause is void. E. Severance is Impossible. Section XIII of the Specific Plan and Section 12 of Initiative contain severability clauses (CT 625, 633). If the Court invalidates any provision of the Initiative, the Court must address the question of severability. The inclusion of a severability clause does not guarantee that valid portions of a partially invalid initiative can or should be enforced. As the California Supreme Court has explained: 63 ok 7�4 "Although not conclusive, a severability clause normally calls for sustaining the valid part of the enactment, especially when the invalid part is mechanically severable.... [S]uch a clause plus the ability to mechanically sever the invalid part while normally allowing severability, does not conclusively dictate it. The final determination depends on whether the remainder ... is complete in itself and would have been adopted bathe legislative body had the latter foreseen the partial invalidity of the statute ... or constitutes a completely operative expression of legislative intent... j and is notj so connected with the rest of the statute as to be inseparable....." (Gerken v. Fair Political Practices Cam. (1993) 6 CalAth 707, 714 ("Gerken") citing Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Ca1.3d 805, 821 ("Calfarm") (some citations omitted, italics in original.) To be severable, a provision must be "grammatically, functionally, and volitionally severable." (Gerken, supra, 6 CalAth at 714.) Appellant respectfully submits that the invalid portions of this Initiative are so extensive as to make severance impossible on all three counts. . An invalid provision is grammatically severable if it is a "`distinct and separate' provision that can be removed without affecting the wording of any other provisions." (Rental Housing Assn of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.AppAth 741, 770, citing Calfarm, supra, 48 Cal.3d at 822.) The legislative aspects of the Initiative's Specific Plan are not grammatically severable because they are inextricably interwoven with the invalid administrative and adjudicatory provisions. For example, Section 1V of the Specific Plan provides that, "[s]ubject to the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to Section V of this Specific Plan, the following uses shall be permitted..." (Emphasis added) (CT 614.)" In other words, no uses are permitted under ii Section III, Definitions also references Section.V of the Specific. Plan in defining "Coastal Development Permit." Deleting Section V will 49 the Specific Plan unless permit issuance is compelled. 12 Therefore, if the Court strikes Section V as an impermissible intrusion on the City's administrative powers, Section IV would be meaningless because it would depend on a section that would no longer exist. "Functional severability" is even more problematic because it turns on whether the elimination of an invalid provision will "undermine" any of the remaining provisions or affect the "overall purpose" of the initiative (Schweitzer v. Westminster Investments (2007) 157 Cal.AppAth 1195, 1212; Rental Housing Assn of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at 770.) As noted above, without the compulsory issuance of a CDP, no new uses at the CPF are permitted. There is no question that severance of this element would defeat the overall purpose of the Initiative. In addition, Venoco's existing facilities are an integral part of the Project described in the Initiative (see § V(C), supra). However, the grant to Venoco of powers associated with those facilities violates Article II, Section 2 of the California Constitution. Unlike the situation in Pala, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at 579, in which the Court could simply. delete the name of the private entity, neither Venoco nor the existing facilities can be deleted from the initiative without affecting its overall purpose. Moreover, once the Court strikes the void precedence clause and the provisions that are inconsistent with the GP/LCP and the CMC, the Paredon Project would not be authorized to proceed. For example, the 140 foot and 175 foot drilling rigs (CT 622) would obstruct existing view corridors of the ocean and bluff top edge and, having not been subjected to review by the City's Architectural Review Board, would conflict with Objectives : render the definition non-sensical. (CT 612.) 12 The Court would also need to strike the reference to the "Coastal Development Permit" in §VI(D)(2) of the Specific Plan. (CT 621). 50 (a -5 8f 7� CDS6-2, OSC-13 and Implementation Policy 59. (CT 559-600.) The operation of the drill rigs and associated equipment, -lights, etc. 24 hours a day for as many as 30 years (CT 62 1) would conflict with policies requiring low intensity lighting (CT 602) and would also conflict with Implementation Policy 22 of the Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Element concerning protection of the Harbor Seal Hauling Ground (CT 605). Finally, any determination of "volitional severability" would require extensive speculation. "The test is whether it can be said with confidence that the electorate's attention was sufficiently focused upon the parts to be severed so that it would have separately considered and adopted them in the absence of the invalid portions."(Gerken, supra, 6 CalAth at 715, citing People's Advocate, Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 316, 332-3.) Stated another way, the Court must determine that the invalid provisions are not so critical that the electorate would not have adopted the valid portions without them. (Calfarm, supra, 48 Cal.3d at 822; see, also, Alexander v. Mitchell (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 816, 829.) There 4 no question that the foci of the Initiative are the exemption it provides from the policies of the GP/LCP for Venoco's specific project and the compulsory CDP issuance for any permit application that is consistent with the Specific Plan. Absent these invalid provisions, the Initiative has no focus whatsoever. For all these reasons, if the Court invalidates the provisions of the Initiative challenged by Appellants, the Court must invalidate the entire Initiative. 51 VL CONCLUSION. The power of the electorate may be broad, but it is expressly limited by the Constitution to legislative acts (Cal. Const., art, II, §§S, 11) — and this Initiative goes too far. If approved by the electorate, Venoco's. existing CPF and its new Paredon Project will be a perpetually moving target over which the City may never be able to exercise administrative, discretionary control. This result is plainly in excess of the Initiative power. For all the reasons set forth in this brief and in the documents filed herewith, Appellant and the City of Carpinteria respectfully request that the Court declare the Initiative invalid. Date: February 2, 2010 Respectfully submitted, BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP By: - ERIC BERG TIMOTHY H. IRONS and DIANE M. MATSINGER Attorneys for Appellant Peter N. Brown and Substituting Party City of Carpinteria 52 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 14(c)(2)) The text of APPELLANT, S OPENING BRIEF consists of 14,939 words as counted by the Microsoft Word word-processing program used to generate the brief. Dated: February 2, 2010 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ERIC BERG TIMOTHY H. IRONS Attorneys for Appellant Peter N. Brown and Substituting Party the City of Carpinteria 53 66� y PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, . California 90067. On February 2, 201.0,1 served the within document(s): APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set forth below. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre -paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a agent for delivery. F-1 by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. by placing the document listed above in a sealed envelope for collection by Overnite Express on this date, and would, in the ordinary course of business, be retrieved by Overnite Express for overnight delivery on this date. SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 2, 2010, at Los Angeles, California. Nadia A. Valde /54 SERVICE LIST Timothy E. Metzinger Mark S. Manion Price, Postel & Parma LLP 200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 962-0011 Fax: (805) 965-3978 Clerk of the Court Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara 1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121 Supreme Court of California 350 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94102-4797 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross -Petitioners. Venoco, Inc. Michael Downs, Christine Gahan, and Vernon Mesick 4 copies 55 7a � 7f Oil company spending lavishly to get around Carpinteria law Donna Jordan, who chairs the opposition campaign to the ballot initiative backed by Venoco Inc., stands with ally Ted Rhodes near the site where Venoco wants to erect an oil -drilling rig. Jordan, a former Carpinteria mayor, says her side is at a financial disadvantage: "We're a poor, grass-roots group. We won't be able to raise anything like Venoco:' (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times / February 18, 2010) Venoco Inc., which wants to begin round-the-clock drilling in the area, is pouring money into a ballot initiative that would exempt it from the city's industrial development and environmental rules. Michael Hiltzik February 21, 2010 Carpinteria is a lovely little city on the Pacific just south of Santa Barbara, boasting such features as a city -owned coastal preserve and one of the four remaining seal rookeries in Southern California. Just about the last place you'd expect to become the target of a hostile corporate takeover. The corporation is Venoco Inc., an independent oil company with revenue of more than half a billion dollars a year, which currently owns an oil storage facility in Carpinteria. One would get weary painting big oil companies as soulless monsters, if Venoco didn't make it so easy. This Denver-based firm is spending lavishly to pass a ballot initiative specifically exemptin ig 'tself from the city's industrial development and environmental rules. That's because it's afraid that Carpinteria's elected officials, left to their own devices, might not greenlight its proposal to operate a 10 -story oil derrick round the clock on its property next to a 225 -home residential neighborhood and on the edge of the ecologically sensitive coastal bluffs. If the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Development Initiative passes in June, however, city officials will have no say in the matter. City requirements that all industrial developments go through public planning and land -use review? Venoco will be exempt. Regulations aimed at reducing the effects of industrial spotlights, noise, traffic, and vibration on local residents? They won't apply to Venoco's 24 -hour -a -day drilling. What if the project threatens to drive down real estate values? Tough. Venoco won't have to take that into consideration. Rules prohibiting noise, vibration or other industrial byproducts that could bother the seals during their mating and birthing rituals or drive them off the beach? The initiative exempts "the exploration, development, production, gathering and transmission of oil and natural gas from onshore and offshore oil fields from an existing oil and natural gas facility using extended reach drilling," i.e., Venoco. What if Venoco decides down the line to change or increase its activities on the parcel? As long as it can show that failing to make the change would "substantially frustrate" its oil and gas drilling program, the city has to agree -- and those changes won't be subject to voter approval. So here we are on the cusp of a new California trend: businesses that don't care to bother with legitimate government regulatory procedures scampering directly to the voters. All it takes is money. Venoco has reported spending more than $155,000 on the initiative up to the end of 2009, but a company spokesman told me last week that more money has been spent since then. And the election is still three months away. That may not sound like a lot for a California election, but keep in mind this is a municipal ballot in a city where candidates for office typically spend somewhere in the mid four figures. Donna Jordan, a former Carpinteria mayor who chairs the initiative opposition campaign, says her last two runs for office cost her $3,500 each. "We're a poor, grass-roots group," she told me. "We won't be able to raise anything like Venoco." Carpinteria has already spent more than $300,000 fighting the initiative in court. A state court judge ruled that most of the initiative appeared valid, but the city has appealed, arguing that by mandating not only general planning principles but a specific development plan, the initiative goes beyond the legal limits of ballot measures -- not only crosses the line, the city says, but "obliterates the line entirely." (The City Council also voted last week to formally oppose the measure.) Venoco says the project might produce $200 million in royalties to be distributed to the city and Santa Barbara County over a couple of decades, but it's conceivable that the real sum could be zero. It depends on whether or how much oil is recovered, and how any resulting royalties are divided up. The city says that any money it gets may have to be spent mitigating the effects of the drilling, anyway. Venoco, which was founded in 1992 by a former Unocal executive named Timothy Marquez, claims to be one of the largest oil and gas development companies in California. It operates several offshore rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel. Since he and his family owned more than 61 % of its stock at the time of its 2009 proxy statement, it's fair to say that Timothy Marquez is Venoco. Marquez didn't reply directly to several messages I left him. I was thinking of asking him to join in a forum with two other CEOs whose companies are spending millions of dollars to pass self-interested California ballot measures, George Joseph of Mercury Insurance and Peter Darbee of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. The tentative title: "Let Your Money Do the Talking." Venoco filed its application with the city to install the oil derrick next to its storage 73 of 7� tanks in 2005. The idea was to drill under the ocean from onshore, rather than set up a rig in the water. Under the existing municipal code, such a project would be illegal. For the next four years the city and the company negotiated. The city held extensive hearings and launched an environmental review. Early last year, after the review identified 11 "significant and unavoidable impacts" from the proposal, Venoco abruptly withdrew its application, halting the environmental review, and hired a firm to send paid signature gatherers into the city. The initiative was duly certified for the June ballot as Measure J. As City Atty. Peter Brown observes, Measure J is a step backward from the proposal Venoco had brought before the city. It lacks the health and safety protections normally required under municipal law, and it won't be subject to an environmental review. "When voters go to the polls they'll have no official report telling them what the impacts are," he told me. Although the project would still be subject to state Coastal Commission approval, the initiative would take the city out of that process -- in effect, only Venoco could dicker with the commission over the project. Will Carpinteria's 6,000 or so voters be taken in? No one suggests that Venoco's proposal doesn't deserve formal scrutiny, especially amid concern about our appetite for imported oil. But the city was doing exactly that, and no one, including Venoco, suggested that the process was rigged until Venoco itself moved to rig the game by writing its own rules and trying to buy them a place in the municipal code. Carpinteria has traditionally been sensitive about its natural setting and the fragility of its environment, so perhaps Venoco's money won't count for much. On the other hand, this new sign that government in California is for sale to the highest bidder reminds me of a line from Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at michael.hiltzik@latimes www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik2l-2010feb2l ,0,3506662.column Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times 71/'D/ 7� Page 1 of 1 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:28 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount Expansion From: russlong@aol.com [mailto:russlong@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 5:55 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Expansion Ladies and Gentlemen, My wife and I have lived 1 block from the Marymount campus for 18 years. When we moved here, we did so without concern of this campus turning into a full-time residential college. The parking is also a nightmare and Marymount's proposal falls well short of allowing enough parking spaces. In addition, Marymount claims there will be a reduction in traffic as a result of this plan. Are they kidding? As it stands, the kids using this campus only travel on our roads on the days they attend class. Once they live here they will be traveling to and from this campus on a daily basis. For the safety and preservation of the neighborhood we love so much, please do not allow this proposal to pass your committee. Once and for all, we must send the message that if they want these changes, they need to move, not alter our lives. Thank you, Russ & Sandra Long 30836 Casilina Dr. RPV, CA 90275 3/29/2010 Page 1 of 1 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:16 AM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount Expansion From: jhswoboda@aol.com [mailto:jhswoboda@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 1:29 PM To: CC@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Expansion All proposals for Marymount expansion should be rejected because the congestion will be a huge problem. There will be unacceptable levels of increased traffic and a shortage of parking spaces. The area cannot successfully sustained the expansion of this campus. Juliet Swoboda registered voter and resident of RPV 3/29/2010 C;� From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:23 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount expansion -----Original Message ----- From: Sylvi Underwood [mailto:sylvi.underwood@suomi24.fi] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:31 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount expansion Dear City Council, Please stop Mrymount College destroying our neighborhood. The construction and changes will create a burden for the area population with noise , construction traffic, dust etc.. The Marymount College DOES NOT CARE about anything else except getting their way -and earn more money from future students. Marymount College is a religious institute that does not pay any taxes but uses our roads and other services. Also why does a college need a athelic building?? In my opinion college is for higher learning not sports. There is plenty areas to excersise in surrounding area. Please do not let Marymount College get away with disrtoying people's lives around the college. Tkank you for your attention in this important issue. sylvi underwood 31314 eaglehaven circle, RPV,ca, 90275 310-541-9656 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:23 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount's Extravagant Plans -----Original Message ----- From: MARYANN MEVERS [mailto:GEMAMAIL@COX.NET] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:35 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount's Extravagant Plans For several years I have watched with growing amazement and disbelief as Marymount spokesmen subtly altered their approaches to gain what it seems they have desired all along. What they are proposing is action which will assuredly alter the lives of us who live in proximity to the school. Their weak, unsubstantiated claim that the demolition, earthmoving and construction - along with the huge increase in traffic consisting of heavy, slow vehicles along our already difficult 2 -lane Palos Verdes Drive East - will not affect the residents is laughable. In addition, their diminuation of the time this will take is not realistic. One year! Not so. One previous estimate was "up to 10 years". After the eventual completion of the huge building project, what was once a peaceful and pleasant neighborhood will be forever changed. Taking away the environment which has caused this area to be considered attractive is a gross injustice. The latest approach of having the issue decided by a petition participated in by all Peninsula residents - even those whose lives will not be altered a whit by this intrusion - adds to the list of devious attempts to achieve Marymount's selfish wishes. M.A. Mevers G.E. Mevers From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:33 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: No to dorms PLEASE! -----Original Message ----- From: gjeisenreich@cox.net [mailto:gjeisenreich@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:57 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: No to dorms PLEASE! Dear RPV City Council, We have been home owners in RPV for 9 years. We love living here and raising our family. We were especially drawn to the Mira Catalina area due to the quite and remote location. We were very aware of Marymount Collage when we purchased our home. We were comfortable with the two year college and the off campus housing. To say that we are concerned about the on campus dorms and four year status would truly be an understatement! We are astonished that this could move forward! Having 251 students living on campus would be a disaster!! We personally know of several Marymount college students, living at the off site housing, who are drinking and driving! Our roads are very unsafe! Many Marymount students already speed up and down our hill, causing accidents! Traffic would increase! Especially with extended hours! Living on campus will increase the drunk driving and make this area unsafe! Plus, parties in the dorm! We all went to college, even catholic ones, drinking and parties are prevalent! What is next, fraternity houses on my block?!? We need you to preserve our community! Keep property prices from plummeting due to the college! Keep our roads safe! Please preserve our community and the home of our family!! Please keep us in mind and our children as you make your decision! Warmly, Greg & Jennifer Eisenreich 30323 Abrazo Drive R.P.V. E Page 1 of 1 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:34 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount Expansion From: Lily Wang [mailto:lwang77@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:48 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Expansion Dear City Council Members, I am writing as a very conerned resident in regards to the Marymount expansion. Our neighborhood is not zoned to accomodate the proposed expansion by Marymount. My major concerns are the grading of the slope which would create increased soil instability we already face. This could potentially impact the homes that share the slope and PV Drive East switchback. The expansion will also increase the traffic and noise to the residents. PV Drive East already have traffic safety concerns, such as speeding and bikers. This will only add to the concern. I ask the city council members to please represent the people of RPV and consider the alternative plan that has been suggested. Thank you. Regards, Lily Wang 3/29/2010 C Page 1 of 1 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:34 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Expansion Project of Marymount From: famous dentist [mailto:doctorhollywood@live.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:14 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Expansion Project of Marymount Dear city council, We urge you to vote no on this invasive plan and consider the alternative available. Our life , as we know it , will be forever changed , we live close to Marymount and this project will destroy our quiet, safe life forever. There are so many points to their plan that we do not accept ( and nobody should) Why should the building -codes be changed ? Why should we suffer for 8 years of mess ?. Why should we take unacceptable noise ? Why should we jam our streets with so much cars ? Why should you keep twisting arms to make us accept this faulty EIR ? We do accept the Academic campus but no living-quartes. We really hope that you do reflect our voices. Thank you. B. K. Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. 3/29/2010 a Page 1 of 1 From: ; Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:35 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount Expansion From: B. Komoc[mailto:holisticdoczen@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:02 PM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount Expansion Is our city council representing us the right way ?? We, the majority residents, in close proximity to this negative project, reject this plan which will degrade our neighborhood. I say, in close proximity because that is really what matters. What matters to us is that our elected council members reflect our opinion, keep our neighborhood safe and quiet, keep our children and most important keep our city standards as they are. Will the city council bend our existing laws to satisfy Marymount ?? Will every council -member voting on this negative project ( REALLY) ask themselves: If I was living next to Marymount how would I vote ?? What insults us is that there is an alternative and the council members ( as our representatives ) should consider that . Every single council -member should be held liable for their decision. Dr. Komoc 3/29/2010 Page 1 of 2 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:47 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Subject: FW: March 30 Public Hearing Comments From: Mark R Wells [mailto:mtwells@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:45 PM To: Ara Mihranian; RPV City Council Subject: March 30 Public Hearing Comments Greetings. I have spoken and written about the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and the Appeal filed by CCC/ME. Since the Planning Commission certified the E.I.R. and sent it forward to our City Council, I have favored the Planning Commission's and Staffs recommendations concerning the project. I have been and remain a critic of the Appeal and I hope it is voted against by a majority of Council members. Recently I have talked to some wise individuals and also I have spoken at a recent Planning Commission meeting during the comments on non -agenda items. I am now opposed to having any tennis courts on the west side of the large soccer field which is one of the proposed sites for the tennis courts. I am now realizing more than ever that no matter what fields or courts are placed on the west side of the proposed site of the gymnasium, there is no way to insure that balls and objects that are not supposed go over any fencing along Palos Verdes Drive East, will be able to be kept from hitting and rolling on the asphalt of the public street. Any and every ball, no matter what size it is could pose a very dangerous situation for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians along Palos Verdes Drive East to the west and south of the campus. I originally considered the placement of the large field on the west side if the netting that is illustrated in the E.I.R. actually was able to insure that errant balls would not go onto P.V. Drive East. I no longer feel that even the large netting would be sufficient to consider the orientation of the fields and courts to be safe on the west side of the campus. I believe that the Project can be successfully built having the athletic field remaining where it currently IS. Furthermore, the March 30 public hearing is about the MCFEP and the Appeal and nothing else. There must be no references by the public during testimony about any proposed inititiative, where in support 3/29/2010 Page 2 of 2 or opposition of it. I hope that the Mayor, City Attorney, other Council members and Staff make sure that the public hearing is conducted specifically on the agenda and that there be no comments by either Marymount supporters, CCC/ME members, or members of the general public, on any proposed ballot measure, petition, or any other matter the City Council is currently considering. Thank you. Mark Wells 1858 Trudie Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3/29/2010 Page 1 of 2 From: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:45 PM To: 'Carla Morreale' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Marymount College Expansion- RPV resident voices opinion for City Counsel From: david@pnibenefits.com [mailto:david@pnibenefits.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:55 AM To: cc@rpv.com Subject: Marymount College Expansion- RPV resident voices opinion for City Counsel Dear RPV City Counsel, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Marymount College Expansion. I see no upside for the residents of our community. But, I see many downsides and they include: 1. 8 years of construction: Our community's main artery is PV Dr. East. It is a dangerously narrow, winding mountain road. Most us need to navigate PV Dr. East to get out kids to Penn Hi or PV High as well as Miraleste Intermediate and our places of business. Please imagine an entire community being stuck behind large construction trucks trying to get our kids to school. These truckers do not live in our area and will not be sensitive to our needs. I fear accidents and injuries as well as major inconvenience. And what do we, the residents get for this? NOTHING. 2. Marymount Operating until 11:00pm: This is going to increase traffic and noise in RPV's residential area. We moved up here to live in a quite upscale residential community. Beyond the disturbances, this will lower our RPV neighborhood property values because potential buyers will see the increased traffic and noise and opt to buy in a quieter section of RPV. And what do we get for this depreciation of our properties? NOTHING. Lastly, I want state for the record that I do not understand why the owners of Marymount would be investing all of this money and seeking to obtain these expansion permits if they truly intend to not increase their enrollment. It simply does not "net out" as a viable business move for this educational institution. I fear they are working to obtain these permits with the intention to sell their permitted campus to an outside entity who will not live up to any of 3/29/2010 these campaign promises. Best regards, David Lebental-Homeowner 30513 Ganado Dr., RPV, CA. 90275 C�- � -"-� 3/29/2010 Page 2 of 2